Adding operators like `+ᶜᵏᵈ` in opt-in

[kimikage]

I have suggested the idea of defining saturation operators in the past (as a joke).
https://discourse.julialang.org/t/rfc-what-should-the-arithmetic-within-the-fixedpointnumbers-be/46697/41

I am beginning to think that as long as such operators are not exported by default, it is not a bad idea to provide them.

julia> const +ᶜᵏᵈ = Base.Checked.checked_add
checked_add (generic function with 11 methods)

julia> Int8(127) +ᶜᵏᵈ Int8(1)
ERROR: OverflowError: 127 + 1 overflowed for type Int8

The biggest concern was the rendering and input of minor Unicode characters, but with the emergence of JuliaMono, the situation has greatly improved over the past three years.

Another concern was that checked is too long as a suffix. In the so-called C23, it is proposed to use the ckd prefix for checked arithmetic functions. This gave some justification for the use of the abbreviation ckd.

I believe that no matter what decision we make regarding issue #9, there is a demand to override the context on a per-operator basis.

[xiaoxi-david]

Swift has two types of arithmetic operators: one that allows result overflow and one that does not. For example, for addition, you can use + or &+.
https://docs.swift.org/swift-book/documentation/the-swift-programming-language/advancedoperators/#Value-Overflow

I wonder if Julia could copy a solution like this.

[kimikage]

I wonder if Julia could copy a solution like this.

I don't think this is feasible in Julia v1. The + and - are most likely to be parsed as unary operators.

X <newprefix>+ Y => X <newprefix> (+Y)

[BioTurboNick]

I do like the idea of an operator. A multi-character operator with a special unicode subscript might be too impractical?

Alternatively, these sets of symbols are available, though I don't know if there are other meanings to worry about:

⨥
⨪
⨰

⨹
⨺
⨻
# Although these three aren't so distinguishable in the REPL