See "A formal specification for the (C)Python virtual machine - Python
Language Summit 2020" by Mark Shannon:
https://pyfound.blogspot.com/2020/04/a-formal-specification-for-cpython.html
Victor
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 7:40 PM Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
>
> What would it take to create an ANSI, ECMA
On Sun, Feb 14, 2021 at 7:38 AM Wes Turner wrote:
>
> https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
> https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#software-safety-standards
>
> What is and is not constant time in Python could be added to structured data
> elements in
https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/
https://awesome-safety-critical.readthedocs.io/en/latest/#software-safety-standards
What is and is not constant time in Python could be added to structured
data elements in (implementations') docstrings.
*
"The Python Language
Paul Sokolovsky writes:
> Hello,
>
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 23:10:59 +0900
> "Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
>
> > Chris Angelico writes:
> >
> > > Can you explain what would be improved by having a formalized
> > > standard?
> >
> > The Language Reference together with the Library
Not sure about python, but throughout my career I had to work with
MISRA C standardisation for critical systems.
There is more and more that is handled by python that also needs to go
through validation. I wonder if there's value in that?
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 at 18:40, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
>
>
On 2/12/21 5:19 PM, Guido van Rossum wrote:
From talking to people who at various times have participated in a
language standardization process, I've learned that it's not a panacea,
it's an enormous amount of work, it doesn't guarantee a good outcome,
and plenty of languages do just fine
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 3:36 PM Dan Stromberg wrote:
> I think standardizing Python might be really good for controlling its growth
> and avoiding featuritis.
The dynamics of standard committees lead to even more acute cases of
featuritis: "I support your pet feature if you support mine."
Hello,
On Sat, 13 Feb 2021 23:10:59 +0900
"Stephen J. Turnbull" wrote:
> Chris Angelico writes:
>
> > Can you explain what would be improved by having a formalized
> > standard?
>
> The Language Reference together with the Library Reference *already*
> constitute a formalized standard.
Chris Angelico writes:
> Can you explain what would be improved by having a formalized
> standard?
The Language Reference together with the Library Reference *already*
constitute a formalized standard. They are at least as precise as
most W3C or IETF standards.
What you and Dan seem to be
On Fri, 12 Feb 2021 21:54:44 +0300
Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev wrote:
> How a standard by ANSI, ECMA and/or ISO is any better than a standard by the
> PSF?
The PSF has nothing to do with it. The Python language is controlled
by the core development team. I wouldn't be surprised if some
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021, at 12:33, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> What would it take to create an ANSI, ECMA and/or ISO standard for Python?
>
> It seems to have really helped C.
That confuses cause and effect. C was standardized because there sprung up
hundreds of vaguely compatible
But this message seems to say "Argue with me!"
___
Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org
To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org
https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/
Message archived at
A call for standardization is typically done when multiple competing
de-facto standards competing for space, especially if it's relatively
immature, as a way to bring stakeholders together and reduce fragmentation.
You don't just go through the standards process for its own sake, unless
it's a
>From talking to people who at various times have participated in a language
standardization process, I've learned that it's not a panacea, it's an
enormous amount of work, it doesn't guarantee a good outcome, and plenty of
languages do just fine without it. Also, it costs real money. A lot. I
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 10:42 AM Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 2:26 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 6:58 AM Dan Stromberg wrote:
>> > I believe Python needs to become more independent of CPython, for Python's
>> > long term health.
>> >
>>
>> Since
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 2:26 PM Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 6:58 AM Dan Stromberg wrote:
> > I believe Python needs to become more independent of CPython, for
> Python's long term health.
> >
>
> Since 1997, Python has been defined independently of CPython.
Really? It
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 2:01 PM Greg Ewing
wrote:
> On 13/02/21 9:03 am, Paul Bryan wrote:
> > What if PSF were to undertake codifying a language specification?
>
> We have the Language Reference and Library Reference. Do they
> not count as specifications?
>
It's been a long time since I looked
I definitely think they could. As a developer using Python, they're
fully sufficient for my purposes.
I honestly don't know enough about non-CPython implementations and
their challenges to know what gaps (if any) would need to be filled to
fully implement a compatible version.
On Sat,
On Sat, Feb 13, 2021 at 6:58 AM Dan Stromberg wrote:
> I believe Python needs to become more independent of CPython, for Python's
> long term health.
>
Since 1997, Python has been defined independently of CPython. There
are numerous documents that define the language semantics for the
benefit
On 13/02/21 9:03 am, Paul Bryan wrote:
What if PSF were to undertake codifying a language specification?
We have the Language Reference and Library Reference. Do they
not count as specifications?
--
Greg
___
Python-Dev mailing list --
That could be good. :) And sometimes standards are rubber stamped by
other bodies.
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 12:03 PM Paul Bryan wrote:
> What if PSF were to undertake codifying a language specification?
>
> On Fri, 2021-02-12 at 11:57 -0800, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at
What if PSF were to undertake codifying a language specification?
On Fri, 2021-02-12 at 11:57 -0800, Dan Stromberg wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:02 AM Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev
> wrote:
> > How a standard by ANSI, ECMA and/or ISO is any better than a
> > standard by the PSF?
> >
>
>
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 11:02 AM Ivan Pozdeev via Python-Dev <
python-dev@python.org> wrote:
> How a standard by ANSI, ECMA and/or ISO is any better than a standard by
> the PSF?
>
I don't think what the PSF is producing is truly a standard.
> Is PSF bad at "controlling its growth and avoiding
On Fri, Feb 12, 2021 at 10:51 AM Paul Bryan wrote:
> From my point of view, the process of standardizing through a formal
> standards body is a tedious, verbose, laborious, bureaucratic and
> often contentious process.
>
I've never participated in such a standardization, but I'm sure it's hard
How a standard by ANSI, ECMA and/or ISO is any better than a standard by the
PSF?
Is PSF bad at "controlling its growth and avoiding featuritis" in your opinion
or smth?
On 12.02.2021 21:33, Dan Stromberg wrote:
What would it take to create an ANSI, ECMA and/or ISO standard for Python?
It
>From my point of view, the process of standardizing through a formal
standards body is a tedious, verbose, laborious, bureaucratic and
often contentious process.
I'd really like to know quantitatively what the benefits would be of
running that gauntlet, as I'm not sure they would outweigh the
26 matches
Mail list logo
