Should ":" be an extended alphabetic character?

[David Bartley <bartley%home%ti-csl.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>]

> We have experienced little difficulty with Common LISP -> R3RS
> code ports, precisely because ":" is an extended alphabetic character.
> I advocate leaving it this way.

My problem is not porting code written in Common Lisp over to Scheme.
Leaving ":" as a constituent certainly works well for that purpose.
My problem is implementing the two languages in a single shared
namespace.  Procedures written in either language will be exposed to
symbols read by the other's reader.

--db--