Yes, 'return' is egregious. I believe it was co-designed with haskell's do-notation. So that you could write purely declarative code that was a spitting image o

Yes, 'return' is egregious. I believe it was co-designed with haskell's do-notation. So that you could write purely declarative code that was a spitting image of the imperative equivalent. E.g. x <- foo 2 -- x = foo(2) y <- bar 4 -- y = bar(4) return (x+y) -- return (x+y) But something that's always missing in such discussions is that haskell allows you to define a_better_word = return and then you can freely forget about 'return' in your own code, except when you roll your own monad instances, which is rarer than a blue moon.