On Fri, Oct 9, 2009 at 8:42 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@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 _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
