"John Nagle" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] | And no two implementations are even close to compiling the same language.
That is not what some alternate implementors have claimed. How you done actual tests to prove them wrong? (And, of course, 'close' would need some discussion.) | A consequence of the lack of standardization is that it discourages implementations. Evidence? My impression is that there were more implementations of C before it was standardized than after, or certainly now. Anyway, as I have already said, I think Python is in someways better standardized (even if 'unofficially') than C. Another example: in Python, n >> i == n//(2**i) for integer n and non-negative integer i. C89 gives the same for non-negative n but the result is 'implementation defined' for negative n. (Yes, I know at least partially why the committee could not agree on a standard definition for this case.) I think one thing being overlooked in implementation counts is that CPython is in a real sense several implementations: one each for WinNT, Linux, MAC, OS, Solaris, and so one. They happen to be nearly the same with the diffs implemented as C #ifdefs. The reason for this, in turn, is that CPython is open source *and* welcoming of patches to make all the different versions. So someone wanting to write a version for system X does not have to start from scratch but only has to write miminal patches. (Yes, this is helped by C standardization, as well as CPython being intentionally writen for portability.) The proliferation of C implementations in the 80s was at least partly due to most being proprietary closed source. So there was a lot of duplication of effort, as well as the sometimes rather useless variations that stimulated the official standard. Terry Jan Reedy -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
