On Wed, 29 Mar 2023 at 11:05, Frederick Virchanza Gotham via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 10:51 AM Bo Persson via Std-Proposals
<std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals