Hernán,

> I 100% agree with this, and I see now that the `/m` suffix was not the best
> choice. I more inclined to using `monadic-do`, `monadic-define` and
> `monadic-return`, rather than the ones you suggested. Unless you or anyone else
> has other thoughts on naming, I will go ahead and make these changes.

Actually, I came around on that. You mentioned that these are auxiliary
syntax, so maybe spelling them out makes them too hard to notice and
treat specially.

Maybe make them operator-like instead? Something like <- for define/m?
This will ensure they are catching the eye and are treated with
deliberation. And it consistent with Haskell, I believe?

In any case, I’m not dead set on either, so use your judgement.

> PS: I've been lurking your blog for a few months now, and I really love the
> writing style and aesthetic. Keep posting!

Thanks a lot, I will 🖤

Best of love,
--
Artyom Bologov
https://aartaka.me