Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 11:04:37 +0100

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?

<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?

Received on 2023-03-29 10:04:48