If we do this, I'd prefer new LaTeX macros like \requiresx or so, instead of introducing the chance of misspelling those items. Oh, and the definition of \requires should then use \requiresx, of course.

Amended as suggested.

I'm not entirely convinced that a change is needed here at all (the status quo has a certain appeal even), but if you do want to pursue this, two questions:

1. Can we have starred versions, like \effects*, to not have the colon?
2. Can we generate all the macros more compactly, say by defining a "meta macro" in TeX that emits multiple macros? The goal would be to only have to say each base name once, and have all the derived macros generated automatically.

I'm tempted to just live with the status quo. Please reopen if you feel strongly. At the very least we would want a system that does not require us to state every element twice in macros.tex.

Also, @jwakely, do you have any opinions? We'd like LWG approval for this change, too.

I'm happy with the status quo.

the status quo has a certain appeal even

I suspect an editor of any professional publication would be fired on the spot if they let through an error as egregious as having colons in sentences without those colons actually serving as colons but instead serving as some kind of implicitly quoted colons because they appear unquoted elsewhere. But that's just me and I don't feel strongly about having the document look like amateur hour (it does so regardless, after all), so it's fine with me. :)

@tkoeppe, I guess that counts as a strong opinion.