The potential for a Python 2.8.

[Chris Angelico]

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid at invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list at python.org>,
>>  Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy at panix.com> wrote:
>>> >> Python 2.8j?
>>> >
>>> > You're imagining things.
>>>
>>> Get real... s'not gonna happen.
>>>
>> I wouldn't bet on that.  The situation keeps getting tensor and
>> tensor.
>
> I have a feeling there's a pun there based on the worlds "real" and
> "tensor", but I don't have the math skills required to figure it out.

MRAB suggested "2.8j", which looks like another system of version
number (where you go 2.8, then 2.8a, 2.8b, etc etc), but is a pun on
the notation for imaginary/complex numbers. Hence Roy said "imagining"
things. I tried to call him back to "real" numbers (ones that don't
involve the letter j), and Roy remarked in a way that mentioned
tensors [1], which can represent complex numbers, but I've never dug
into all that myself, so I'll let him explain in more detail. I then
said (though you didn't quote me) that this was a "rational"
discussion until I  suggested a version number involving e, which is
an irrational number (2.71828...), as is sqrt(8) which I also
mentioned at the same time (2.8284...).

I just violated [2]. Sorry.

ChrisA

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor
[2] http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontExplainTheJoke