You're putting the horse before the cart. Before you start worrying about the exact implementation, one needs to show the reason and purpose for the feature in the first place. You didn't provide any justification whatsoever for these changes, or mentioned any thoughts on the effects of the changes.

You even pretend that // doesn't exist. Don't you think people will have a problem with two names for the same operator? The word "teachability" has come up in discussions about new features. Having two operators with the same name would detract from teachability, for one.

The low-precedence version (to be named dor or err) was intentionally rejected (for reasons unknown to me). Do you have any new arguments that was presented then?