I’ve written multiple compilers in Haskell, and a state monad is a reasonable solution to many compiler problems. But you want to keep it abstract—don’t make it obvious you’re using a monad.
Here’s an example from the Glasgow Haskell Compiler (which I did not write; I just work around a few edges), where we build control-flow graphs. Here are the basic ways to make graphs:
empyGraph :: Graph
mkLabel :: Label -> Graph
mkAssignment :: Assignment -> Graph -- modify a register or memory
mkTransfer :: ControlTransfer -> Graph -- any control transfer
(<*>) :: Graph -> Graph -> Graph
But as you’ve discovered, maintaining a supply of unique labels is tedious at best, so we provide these functions as well:
withFreshLabel :: (Label -> Graph) -> Graph
mkIfThenElse :: (Label -> Label -> Graph) -- branch condition
-> Graph -- code in the 'then' branch
-> Graph -- code in the 'else' branch
-> Graph -- resulting if-then-else construct
The whole Graph thing is an abstract type, and the translator just merrily constructs graphs in purely functional fashion, without being aware that anything monadic is going on. Then, when the graph is finally constructed, in order to turn it into an algebraic datatype we can generate code from, we give it a supply of unique labels, run the state monad, and pull out the data structure.
The state monad is hidden underneath; although it’s not exposed to the client, the definition of Graph is something like this:
type Graph = RealGraph -> [Label] -> (RealGraph, [Label])
or a bit more accurately
type Graph = RealGraph -> State [Label] RealGraph
-- a Graph is a monadic function from a successor RealGraph to a new RealGraph
With the state monad hidden behind a layer of abstraction, it’s not smelly at all!