Hi Mark. Thanks for your reply, I really appreciate it.
Mark Shannon said: > My intention, and I apologize for not making this clearer, was not to > denigrate your work, but to question the implications of the term "reference". > > Calling something a "reference" implementation suggests that it is something > that people can refer to, that is near perfectly correct and fills in the > gaps in the specification. > > That is a high standard, and one that is very difficult to attain. It is why > I use the term "implementation", and not "reference implementation" in my > PEPs. Interesting. The reason I typically include a "Reference Implementation" section in my PEPs is because they almost always start out as a copy-paste of the template in PEP 12 (which also appears in PEP 1): https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#what-belongs-in-a-successful-pep https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0012/#suggested-sections Funny enough, PEP 635 has a "Reference Implementation" section, which itself refers to the implementation as simply a "feature-complete CPython implementation": https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0635/#reference-implementation (PEP 634 and PEP 636 don't mention the existence of an implementation at all, as far as I can tell.) It's not a huge deal, but we might consider updating those templates if the term "Reference Implementation" implies a higher standard than "we've put in the work to make this happen, and you can try it out here" (which is what I've usually used the section to communicate). Brandt _______________________________________________ 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 https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/T2RRSWLTBEQKZVHROFQFUYVWCLZQ3MBB/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
