Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.python > #64654 > unrolled thread

Re: The potential for a Python 2.8.

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.python

This discussion starts older than the indexed window; earlier articles aren't shown. The article labeled Started by below is the oldest one visible, not the original post.

Contents

  Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> - 2014-01-24 02:05 +0000
    Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-23 21:22 -0500
      Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 13:28 +1100
        Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-23 21:34 -0500
          Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-24 13:39 +1100
          Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-01-24 15:36 +0000
            Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 02:57 +1100
            Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> - 2014-01-24 12:17 -0500
            Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> - 2014-01-25 04:30 +1100
            Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> - 2014-01-24 19:56 -0500
              Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Tim Chase <python.list@tim.thechases.com> - 2014-01-24 19:07 -0600
              Re: The potential for a Python 2.8. Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2014-01-25 02:24 +0000

#64654 — Re: The potential for a Python 2.8.

On 2014-01-24 01:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
>> Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre.
>> Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So
>> developers formally said 'No 2.8'. They even inverted the purpose of PEP to
>> make the formal announcement visible and permanent. And a few people still
>> do not want to believe it.
>
> Can I get a new version of Java 1.1.8 please? I want it to include all
> the cool features that I want from the newer versions, but it has to
> still run all my existing code. I'm not going to put in any effort to
> actually _make_ this, I want you to do it for me.
>
> Actually, the Java versioning system was enough of a mess that, to
> this day, I don't know what version(s) my old Java code would and
> wouldn't run on. So glad to have moved away from that. At least with
> Python, semantic versioning [1] means everyone knows what everyone's
> talking about. Python 2.8 has to be broadly compatible with 2.7 and
> doesn't have to be compatible with 3.3. (Which, incidentally, is at
> odds with some people's idea of a 2.8, which would be incompatible
> with both. I'm not sure what that would be called - e.1? sqrt(8).0?
> Something else?)
>
[snip]
Python 2.8j?

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#64655

In article <mailman.5926.1390529147.18130.python-list@python.org>,
 MRAB <python@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote:

> On 2014-01-24 01:00, Chris Angelico wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 11:42 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
> >> Burying 'Python 2.8' was the purpose of PEP 404. It is kind of bizarre.
> >> Developers informally said 'No 2.8'. People would not believe that. So
> >> developers formally said 'No 2.8'. They even inverted the purpose of PEP to
> >> make the formal announcement visible and permanent. And a few people still
> >> do not want to believe it.
> >
> > Can I get a new version of Java 1.1.8 please? I want it to include all
> > the cool features that I want from the newer versions, but it has to
> > still run all my existing code. I'm not going to put in any effort to
> > actually _make_ this, I want you to do it for me.
> >
> > Actually, the Java versioning system was enough of a mess that, to
> > this day, I don't know what version(s) my old Java code would and
> > wouldn't run on. So glad to have moved away from that. At least with
> > Python, semantic versioning [1] means everyone knows what everyone's
> > talking about. Python 2.8 has to be broadly compatible with 2.7 and
> > doesn't have to be compatible with 3.3. (Which, incidentally, is at
> > odds with some people's idea of a 2.8, which would be incompatible
> > with both. I'm not sure what that would be called - e.1? sqrt(8).0?
> > Something else?)
> >
> [snip]
> Python 2.8j?

You're imagining things.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64656

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
>> Python 2.8j?
>
> You're imagining things.

Get real... s'not gonna happen.

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64657

In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list@python.org>,
 Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64658

On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:34 PM, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list@python.org>,
>  Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@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 can't complain, really. This was a perfectly rational discussion
until I suggested "e.1".

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64688

On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list@python.org>,
>  Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@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.

-- 
Grant Edwards               grant.b.edwards        Yow! If I pull this SWITCH
                                  at               I'll be RITA HAYWORTH!!
                              gmail.com            Or a SCIENTOLOGIST!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64690

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
>> In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list@python.org>,
>>  Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64696

On 1/24/2014 10:57 AM, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:36 AM, Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
>>> In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list@python.org>,
>>>   Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64697

On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:17 AM, Terry Reedy <tjreedy@udel.edu> wrote:
> In this case, the explanation is as funny as the joke.

I have to agree. But hey, it passes the time...

ChrisA

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64710

In article <lbu1an$3rb$1@reader1.panix.com>,
 Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> > In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list@python.org>,
> >  Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@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.

You must be pretty weak in math, then.  This really isn't that complex.

[some of you who hang out on panix know where this is heading...]

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64712

On 2014-01-24 19:56, Roy Smith wrote:
> In article <lbu1an$3rb$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>  Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 
> > On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list@python.org>, Chris
> > > Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@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.
> 
> You must be pretty weak in math, then.  This really isn't that
> complex.

No need to be so irrational about things!

-tkc

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#64716

On 2014-01-25, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
> In article <lbu1an$3rb$1@reader1.panix.com>,
>  Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> On 2014-01-24, Roy Smith <roy@panix.com> wrote:
>> > In article <mailman.5927.1390530488.18130.python-list@python.org>,
>> >  Chris Angelico <rosuav@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 1:22 PM, Roy Smith <roy@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.
>
> You must be pretty weak in math, then.

It was more of reading problem. I completely failed to notice the "j"
and the "imagining".  Now I get it.

> This really isn't that complex.

I refuse to become a vector for the spread of these bad puns.

-- 
Grant

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.python

csiph-web