On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 5:11 PM, Paul Sokolovsky <pmiscml at gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, 4 Jun 2014 16:12:23 -0600 > Eric Snow <ericsnowcurrently at gmail.com> wrote: >> Actually, there is a "formal, implementation-independent language >> spec": >> >> https://docs.python.org/3/reference/ > > Opening that link in browser, pressing Ctrl+F and pasting your quote > gives zero hits, so it's not exactly what you claim it to be. It's also > pretty far from being formal (unambiguous, covering all choices, etc.) > and comprehensive. Also, please point me at "conformance" section. > > That said, all of us Pythoneers treat it as the best formal reference > available, no news here. It's not just the best formal reference. It's the official specification. I agree it is not so "formal" as other language specifications and it does not enumerate every facet of the language. However, underspecified parts are worth improving (as we've done with the import system portion in the last few years). Incidentally, the efforts of other Python implementors have often resulted in such improvements to the language reference. Those improvements typically come as a result of questions to this very list. :) That's essentially what this email thread is! -eric
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