Should ":" be an extended alphabetic character?

[Alan Bawden <ALAN@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>]

By my reading of the Thrice Revised Report, in implementations that truely
support ":" as an extended alphabetic character it should be the case
that:

  (eq? 'user:cons 'lisp:cons)  => #F

Yet in implementations where ":" provides access to a Common Lisp style
package system it will be the case that this returns #T.

Thus it seems to me that the two are incompatible.  If you wish to permit
Scheme implementations to access a package system using ":", while
continuing to conform to the definition of the language, then you have to
give ":" some status other than extended alphabetic.