śr., 29 mar 2023 o 12:05 Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals_at_[hidden]> napisał(a):
>
> 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?
>

News flash to you, on real hardware Pi is rational :P
I can find two integral types that make `a / b == Pi`, take that Math!

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