Colin J. Williams wrote:
> John Nagle wrote:
>> Paddy wrote:
>>> I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
>>> contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
>>> Specifically in the context of this table:
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages#General_comparison
>>>
>>>
>>> (Comparison of programming languages)
>>> And this entry in the talk page
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming_languages#Standardized_Python.3F
>>>
>>>
>>> (Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?)
>>>
>>> - Thanks.
>>
>> That's correct. Python is not standardized by any standards body.
>> And no
>> two implementations are even close to compiling the same language.
>>
>> A consequence of the lack of standardization is that it discourages
>> implementations. There are about four implementations of something like
>> Python (other than CPython), and none of them are close to being usable.
>> Letting the author of one implementation control the language discourages
>> other implementations.
>>
>> Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea.
>>
>> John Nagle
>
> Better to wait for 3.0?
>
I'd argue for standardizing from 2.5, and viewing 3.x as a possible
future upgrade.
John Nagle
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
