Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:20 AM, Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I think you should pick a new operator name, not try to reuse %.
> On second thought, it could use overloading distinguished with
> different argument types, so it doesn't need a different name, but I
> don't know if it is a good idea to use that overloading.
I would vote for overloading; there's no risk of confusion that I can see.
regards, tom lane