> On Fri, 13 Jun 2003, Guido van Rossum wrote: > [Python Language Standard] > > Not really, and not that I'm aware of. In practice, there's only one > > Python implementation that could be used here (Jython doesn't make > > sense in this context) so I'm not sure what a standardization effort > > would buy us. > Hmm, at least with PERL there are concerns that the different PERL version > have subtle differences. From the #lsb channel: > <chris> The problem we have here is the standardisation of perl > <chris> if we require perl on lsb systems, what does this really mean? Lots > of versions out there with subtle incompatabilities > > > It's not like there are lots of diverging Python distributions, > > like with Unix or the Linux kernel. > Well, even with things like the glibc, which exists only once and is in > principle the same, you might hit problems (e.g. with different forms of > threads) depending on the version. > > > Standardizing on a version might make sense; I would recommend using the > > 2.2 line of releases, starting with 2.2.3 (the latest 2.2 release), > > until 2.3 is considered stable. > That was what chris ment (for Perl): While let's say Perl 5.6 and 5.8 are > similar, they are not identical for certain applications (especially > tainting and unicode). That is: One would like to know (e.g.) a subset > which is _guaranteed_ to work. > > While Python is more stable than perl in this respect (at least I have > that expression) the problem is that there is no fixed python language: > With any new release not only bugs are fixed, but also new > language features are added. While this makes features-to-market faster, > it probably creates the problems that make it hard to "standardize" > python. This done when it is included in the LSB (kind of): > The programs have to behave _identical_ independend of the > python version. This reveals a hopelessly naive view on standardization. > > There is of course a thorough standard test suite for Python > Hmm. It should be somehow possible to get python (and perl) into the LSB, > hmm. > > > Other than that, I expect that including Python in LSB is more a > > matter of political will in the LSB committee than anything else. > I'm not that sure, at least for LSB 2.0 which is supposed to be modulized > this might actually happen. (Though probably only if also Perl gets > included.) Why would Python only be included if Perl was also included? As I said, this is just politics. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4