> [2] I will point out that, for arithmetic overflow, this semantics is usually wrong. There are very few times where you want <large positive number> + <large

> [2] I will point out that, for arithmetic overflow, this semantics is usually wrong. There are very few times where you want <large positive number> + <large positive number> = <negative number>, and so you're mostly just swapping out an unpredictably wrong program for a predictably wrong program, which isn't really any better. However, the most common time you do want the wrapping semantics is when you want to check if the overflow happened, and this is where C's lack of any overflow-checked arithmetic option is really, really painful. Being _predictably_ wrong is actually much better than being _unpredictably_ wrong, in that case, it's not UB(unpredictably) anymore is it? If the semantics are exactly what you saying you could just convert the predictable wrong value to a correct one and you have overflow checking.