[RFC] Shorter alternative representation for `of'

[Jose E. Marchesi]

> Hi Jose.
>
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2026 at 03:16:20PM +0100, Jose E. Marchesi wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
>
>
> As a side note, I like the idea of left-to-right selection and
> I propose `fo' for that (naturally!).
>
>     foo of bar of baz
>     baz fo bar fo foo

I wouldn't object to add `fo' for left to right selection once/if we
inroduce it, to mirror `of'... naturally :)


But regarding a shorter version of `of':

> If / was available for `fo' (which is not), then your proposal of
> using \ for `of' would be awesome.
>
>     foo of bar of baz           foo\bar\baz
>     baz fo bar fo foo           baz/bar/foo
>
> But, impossible!
>
>
> So my suggestion is the following (which you probably won't like, but I have to
> try!):
>
>     foo of bar of baz           foo'bar'baz
>     baz fo bar fo foo           baz!bar!foo
>
>
> These are visually distinctive.
> ! is inspired by "bang path" used for uucp command on Unix systems, and implies
> traversing the hierarchy from top to bottom.

I am leaning more and more on using apostrophe.  As Hansen mentions in
AB427 in his comments to the standard hardware representation, it was
obvious for eveyone that apostrophe was the best option for a
single-character version of `of'.

The only reason why then he suggested using `./' is that using single
apostrophe was not practical back when the original stropping regime was
still widely used.  (The word "stropping" comes from "apostrophe").

We don't support quote-stropping.  So there is no reason IMO to prefer
the two characters sequence `./' to the single character `''...


>> PS: the suggestion of ./, also mentioned in AB427 is cute, because it
>>     looks like longhand "of".  But it is two characters long.
>> 
>
>
> I'm also OK with this (it's just two characters and not four):
>
>     foo of bar of baz           foo./bar./baz
>     baz fo bar fo foo           baz.\bar.\foo
>
> or even better:
>
>     foo of bar of baz           foo./bar./baz
>     baz fo bar fo foo           baz\.bar\.foo
>
>
> Happy algoling!