It might not be "idiomatic", but it isn't "unsafe", and so it is now providing a guaranteed behavior that... is it a bug? I certainly think saturation should always be considered a bug... like that's even worse to me than truncation as the semantics of truncation are at least interesting and related to mathematical basis of von neumann computing and sometimes extremely useful as a way to interact with memory-oriented systems, while the semantics of saturation are just subtle corruption that is almost useless to "use" for anything valuable (and are inconsistent, unless they are also doing it for integers? like if I cast a floating point to a 64-bit number and then to an 8-bit number do I get a truncated result instead of a saturated one?... I hope not, even though I reject saturation as a reasonable semantic). But if it is defined legal and guaranteed behavior, what should a tool do in this scenario? It can't say "you have a bug here" as maybe you wanted that behavior.