[RFC] Shorter alternative representation for `of'

[jpl]

Damn, gmail did a premature and  unintended "send message now" to my
previous message

Anyhow is the suggestion to use    ` (backtick) or ' (apostrophe) ?

On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 7:45 PM jpl <jpl.algol68@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I was confused a bit about the use of the word "apostrophe" a
> few times reading the post.  I have most often seen:
>
>   `   called a "backtick"
>
>   '   called an "apostrophe"
>
> Just to make use I understand.  Is the suggestion for "of" to be:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 6:00 PM Jose E. Marchesi <jemarch@gnu.org> wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>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.