> As a separate note, now that we have p-m, wouldn't it be better not to use defpat at all? In fact, if we use "pm" instead, pm:def is just as short.
That's correct, although p-m:def does have a symbol on the top row of the keyboard (-) and shifted symbol on the home row (:). I'd suppose that using pattern-matching in def is significantly more common than all the other cases combined. Although in terms of readability, certainly p-m:def would raise the question of "wtf is this?" only once and introduce the pattern-matching modifier completely, whereas "p-m:afn" and "defpat" will introduce them separately.
