John Nagle wrote: > Paddy wrote: >> I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also >> contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized". >> Specifically in the context of this table: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_programming_languages#General_comparison >> >> >> (Comparison of programming languages) >> And this entry in the talk page >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Comparison_of_programming_languages#Standardized_Python.3F >> >> >> (Talk:Comparison of programming languages#Standardized Python?) >> >> - Thanks. > > That's correct. Python is not standardized by any standards body. > And no > two implementations are even close to compiling the same language. > > A consequence of the lack of standardization is that it discourages > implementations. There are about four implementations of something like > Python (other than CPython), and none of them are close to being usable. > Letting the author of one implementation control the language discourages > other implementations. > > Submitting Python 2.5 to ISO/ANSI might be a good idea. > > John Nagle
Better to wait for 3.0? Colin W. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list