On Wed Sep 2, 2026 at 6:54 PM EEST, Peter McGoron wrote:
> 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.

Another alternative which we aren't considering is good old `set!`. After all,
`<-` is known as the "assignment operator" in the Haskell world, and in Scheme
we use `set!` for assignments. So, something like `monadic-set` is also on the
table (note the lack of exclamation mark).

Yet another change I was considering is removing the monadic qualifier inside
the `do`. So, something like this:

```
(monadic-do <numbered>
  (set counter $inc)
  (return (cons counter val)))
```

What do you think?

Hernán