Nono! Typesafe, I mean Lightbend, declared that random strings of symbols are just <i>method names</i>, so no need to worry about that operator overloading thing! Except methods with &quot;:&quot; in the name tend to work differently wrt. precedence.<p>(Look, I&#x27;m <i>not</i> on a crusade against Typesafe&#x2F;Lightbend, but they&#x27;ve been hugely disingenous on a lot of things like this. I could have accepted it if they&#x27;d just said &quot;yes, it&#x27;s operator overloading, but better&quot;. Instead they chose this ridiculous disingenuous &quot;nono, it&#x27;s just method names!&quot; approach. In my book, the only people who can get away get arbitrary method&#x2F;function naming are the LISP&#x2F;Scheme people. Because in LISP&#x2F;Scheme there <i>is</i> no precedence to worry about.)