I think `let*/m` would be better than `let/m` in that case. The thing
about `define` that trips me up is that it normally defines a set of
mutually recursive expressions:

     (lambda (n)
       (define (even? n)
         (or (zero? n) (odd? (- n 1))))
       (define (odd? n)
         (and (not (zero? n))
              (even? (- n 1))))
       (write (even? n))
       (newline))

It is also not allowed in R6RS for a body with `define` to `define` the
same variable more than once.

-- Peter McGoron

On 9/1/26 05:37, Hernán Ibarra Mejia wrote:
> `define/m` binds a
> variable in subsequent expressions, rather than in a new enclosing scope like a
> `let` would do.