[RFC] Shorter alternative representation for `of'

[Jose E. Marchesi]

Hello.

As Hansen puts it in AB427:

 "Essentially, there must be a special-character representation of the
  'of symbol' because the operation binds so much more closely even than
  monadic operators and yet the bold OF is at least four characters
  long.

  As e worked on the standard, it became apparent that the best
  alternative for OF is the character that is worthy and yet has no
  meaning outside strings: apostrophe.

  Since the "operand" to the left of the OF must be a selector, and
  since a selector must be followed by OF, there is little purpose to
  having a more obstrusive symbol."

I wholehearthy agree.

However, I propose we should use backslash `\' rather than apostrophe,
for the following reasons:

1. Backslash is also worthy but not currently meaningful ouside strings.
   Back in the time where they considered using apostrophe, `\' wasn't a
   worthy character because it wasn't supported in EBCDIC.  But now it
   is.

2. If we use backslash for `of' then it will be natural to use the
   apostrophe if/when we introduce support for left-to-right selection.

   So:

      foo\bar\baz   represents  foo of bar of baz
      foo'bar'baz   represents  baz of bar of foo

[Yes I suppose that strictly speaking:
 - If we use backslash \ then the opposite would be slash /.
 - If we use quote ' then the opposite would be backquote `.

 But on one side / is a nomad, so no.

 And on the other size, backquote can be easily confused with quote,
 visually.]

WDYT?

PS: the suggestion of ./, also mentioned in AB427 is cute, because it
    looks like longhand "of".  But it is two characters long.