[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.
> <snip>
>>   So:
>>
>>      foo\bar\baz   represents  foo of bar of baz
>>      foo'bar'baz   represents  baz of bar of foo
> <snip>
>>
>>WDYT?
>>
>>PS: the suggestion of ./, also mentioned in AB427 is cute, because it
>>    looks like longhand "of".  But it is two characters long.
>
> Hello, a few quick comments:
>
> 1)  The use of the apostrophe matches nicely with the transput new line of 'n
>
> 2)  The suggested foo\bar\baz is quite much more visually distracting
> than foo'bar'baz
>
> 3)  A standard English contraction of the word "of" would be o', so
> the apostrophe
>      there kinds of glues the word "of" in my brain when I see it
>
> So, my personal taste would be for the apostrophe. (Probably point 2
> is strongest.)

To me an apostrophe "points" to the right.
A backlash "points" to the left.