On Sun, Sep 13, 2015 at 9:39 AM, Rustom Mody <rustompm...@gmail.com> wrote: > To which we have Chris saying CPython ≠ Python > Which reminds me of another definition > Fig-Leaf: A device for converting poor porn into high art > > Even in languages like C with an ISO standard adhering to the standard is > academic (gcc's switch is --pedantic) and it is in practice major > implementations like gcc and MSC that define and push the standard. > > In python, CPython is the standard and other implementations can lay claim to > being 'python' to the extent that they adhere to the standard. > > Or have I missed some ISO-ization?
ISO hasn't standardized Python, but the Python developers do distinguish between the language and the various implementations. Yes, CPython does push forward ahead of the others, and thus sometimes another Python will replicate CPython behaviour rather than seeking an official language pronouncement; but other times, the PyPy or Jython or Brython folks come to python-dev with a question. As a general rule, most PEPs are about the language, not the implementation, so you can eyeball those to see what you'd need to implement to write a Python from scratch. CPython does not intrinsically define the standard. Some languages are done this way (Pike, for instance), but Python is not. ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
