Double standard for keywords

[JONL at MIT-MC (Jon L White)]

CC: (BUG LISP) at MIT-MC, (BUG LISPM) at MIT-MC

  Date: 6 February 1980 12:54-EST
  From: Mike McMahon <MMCM at MIT-AI>
  Subject:  Bridging the colon gap 
  It is a total crock that the keyword package is the same as the user package.
  I understand that it was moderately convenient at the time it was first im-
  plemented, and that it avoided some problems in the cold load; however these
  should have gone away long ago.  Teaching users not to put in the colons is
  decidedly a bad practice, it can only lead to their confusion, and as well 
  not allow for MACLISP compatible code outside of the user package. Unless
  there are nearly insurmountable problems i am not aware of, i propose biting
  the bullet and fixing this at the same time as the other incompatible changes
Yes, this is precisely the problem - that the system began without the colons,
then *some*, but not all users began using the, leaving us in the current
state where both are needed.  Had the colon (or better yet, package prefix)
been necessary earlier, we wouldn't be in this state now.  
  Date: 6 February 1980 13:31-EST
  From: David A. Moon <MOON at MIT-MC>
	    "The problem, as you remember, is that many people are 
	  confused as to how to type keywords - most believe that the colon is 
	  necessary."
  No, Jonl.  The colon IS necessary, and if any believe otherwise they
  are the ones who are confused.  The fact that it sometimes works not
  to type it is a bug and a crock, it is still necessary.
As your comments about the keywords to open show, the colon really isn't
necessary in user code - if it were, then maclisp would have no problem
with the "double standard".  Would you  (MOON) be in favor of MMcM's
suggestion to "bite the bullet"?