"Of for Christ's sake, I of course mean the bind and the `>>` and whatever that it desugars to. You aren't adding something to the discussion. But thanks for re

"Of for Christ's sake, I of course mean the bind and the `>>` and whatever that it desugars to. You aren't adding something to the discussion. But thanks for reminding me that syntactic sugar has no runtime overhead..." You asked a question, I addressed the parts of it I could address. I don't have a full picture of what you do and don't understand, to reference in pruning my response. If you're aware that do-notation is syntactic sugar then of course I would expect you to be aware that it has no runtime overhead - but I regularly encounter people confused on that first point. My comment adds to the discussion if you're one of those confused people (which apparently you aren't), if one of those people winds up reading the thread, and also to clarify your question for anyone else interested in answering. My answer wasn't intended to be derisive in any way - I don't appreciate abuse in response.