RetroSearch Browse

Mon Oct 12 01:31:06 CEST 2009 · https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/092974.html

On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:42 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
> I think it is important to confirm in advance that all the
> implementations listed below agree to implement the PEP "soonish" after
> it's adopted. "Required" sounds like a strong term - however, if an
> implementation chooses not to implement the PEP, it can do whatever it
> wants, including omission of required fields.
Speaking for Jython, so far it looks like something we would adopt
soonish after it was accepted (it looks pretty useful to me).

> So I propose that the python.org version is identified as "python".
I'll add my voice to the group that likes "cpython" and "CPython" as
the identifier of the python.org implementation.  This version has a
long history, and "Classic Python" has a nice sound to it.  :) -- also
I hope (but won't hold my breath) that Python becomes more associated
with the abstract language in time.

-Frank

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2009-October/092974.html below:

[Python-Dev] PEP about sys.implementation and implementation specific user site directory