The potential for a Python 2.8.

[Terry Reedy]

On 1/24/2014 10:57 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> 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

In this case, the explanation is as funny as the joke.


-- 
Terry Jan Reedy