Of the two, I prefer "monadic-define," because it seems to me that it is
analogous to `define` without having all of its properties.
"define-monadic" sounds like a Scheme definition form (which it isn't)
that defines something that is monadic.

Both sound like a pain to write out. Maybe `d-m` and `r-m` can be kept
as standard abbreviations.

-- Peter McGoron

On 9/2/26 11:43, Hernán Ibarra Mejia wrote:
> For all its verbosity, `monadic-define` gets the meaning across. Though I
> initially dismissed it, `define-monadic` also has some merits, namely it starts
> with "define".