On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 11:05, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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?
>

You're just being silly now.


>
> I mean you're telling me that the Standard can redefine simple English
> terms,


No. The English term still means the same thing. The standard defines terms
**using English words** but within the scope of the C++ standard, they have
the meaning ascribed to them by the standard. The standard defines what
"argument" means. That doesn't mean I can't have an argument with clowns on
the internet, it just means that **within the scope of C++** that word has
a specific meaning, as defined by the standard.



> 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 mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals
>