On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Paul Sokolovsky <pmis...@gmail.com> wrote: > That said, and unlike previous attempts to develop a small Python > implementations (which of course existed), we're striving to be exactly > a Python language implementation, not a Python-like language > implementation. As there's no formal, implementation-independent > language spec, what constitutes a compatible language implementation is > subject to opinions, and we welcome and appreciate independent review, > like this thread did.
Actually, there is a "formal, implementation-independent language spec": https://docs.python.org/3/reference/ > >> Realistically, most Python code that works on Python 3.4 won't work >> on Micropython (for various reasons, not just the string behavior) >> and neither does it need to. > > That's true. However, as was said, we're striving to provide a > compatible implementation, and compatibility claims must be validated. > While we have simple "in-house" testsuite, more serious compatibility > validation requires running a testsuite for reference implementation > (CPython), and that's gradually being approached. To a large extent the test suite in http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/default/Lib/test effectively validates (full) compliance with the corresponding release (change "default" to the release branch of your choice). With that goal, no small effort has been made to mark implementation-specific tests as such. So uPy could consider using the test suite (and explicitly skip the tests for features that uPy doesn't support). -eric _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
