On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:51 AM Bo Persson via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> > Do we really want the C++ Standard to redefine English language
> > scientific terms?
>
> Yes, it does so all the time.


Should I make my programs future-proof today by preparing for the day
when Pi is no longer an irrational number?

I mean you're telling me that the Standard can redefine simple English
terms, so if __uint128_t isn't an integer type, then I need to be
weary about Pi's rationality. I mean if all sense can go out the
window like that, then maybe I should just get an abacus and a pencil
and sod all this computer stuff.

Or are you perhaps proposing that it should be implementation-defined
whether or not Pi is a rational number?

Or perhaps should always be irrational, but the definition of
'irrational' is implementation-defined?