On 2023-03-29 at 11:21, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:01 AM Jonathan Wakely <cxx_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> By definition, there are no integral types wider than uintmax_t, so if __int128 is wider than uintmax_t, it's not an integral type.
>
>
>
> Do we really want the C++ Standard to redefine English language
> scientific terms?

Yes, it does so all the time.

>
> __uint128_t is a type. I think we agree on this point.
> __uint128_t holds an integer. I think we also agree on this second point.
> __uint128_t is an integer type. This seems to be where we disagree.

Yes. The standard says that uintmax_t is the widest integer type.

So, logically(!), if some type is wider, it just cannot be an integer
type. Because that is not allowed.