Except if the main point is "monads are feasible in rust if we add these features".
This is just showing imaginary syntax though, it doesn't speak at all to whether implementing these features is actually possible. Just because you make up some syntax doesn't mean it can actually be done (or how difficult it is etc)
When not taken out of context, I don't think it's misleading at all.
> You see, there’s a problem with talking about whether monads would be useful or not, and it’s this: there are a large number of design challenges to overcome to have any hope of implementing them at all — to the best of my knowledge, there currently exists no realistic (that is, practical) design for monads in Rust. In fact, there are so many obstacles that some people express doubt that it’s even possible.
> In general, I don’t think it’s worth talking about the virtue of a language feature if we think there’s no way we could actually implement it. However, I think there are arguments to be made in favour of higher-level abstractions in Rust. Thus, to facilitate discussion, I want to demonstrate that monads are feasible in Rust.
That was my first reading, your reading didn't occur to me, so I don't see that the title is especially misleading.
Support for monads in Rust is not possible to be added easily to the language, nor is it particularly probable. The features that come with the imagined syntax in the blog post are non-trivial additions to the type system.
edit: If the main point of the article is to show that 'monads are feasible in rust' shouldn't you not be assuming a bunch of language features exist that don't?