4 ms·

The introduction section states that it's not a complete/exact specification. If you're using a Python implementation and have a question, this should answer it

The introduction section states that it's not a complete/exact specification. If you're using a Python implementation and have a question, this should answer it. If you're writing a Python implementation and have a question, this may not answer it. > Consequently, if you were coming from Mars and tried to re-implement Python from this document alone, you might have to guess things and in fact you would probably end up implementing quite a different language. On the other hand, if you are using Python and wonder what the precise rules about a particular area of the language are, you should definitely be able to find them here. If you would like to see a more formal definition of the language, maybe you could volunteer your time — or invent a cloning machine :-).

pdonis 3y ago
> If you're writing a Python implementation and have a question, this may not answer it. Depends on the question. If your question is, say, "how should I implement the built-in types", yes, the language reference won't answer that question. But if your question is "what does my implementation have to do to count as an implementation of the Python language", then yes, the language reference does answer that question--since the language reference is what defines the Python language. To me that is a "specification" of the Python language. It's not a specification of the implementation of the language, but why should that be required for something to be considered a language specification? The whole point is to specify what is required to define the language without specifying every detail of the implementation.
pdonis 3y ago
> if you were coming from Mars and tried to re-implement Python from this document alone, you might have to guess things and in fact you would probably end up implementing quite a different language Yes, I know that statement is in the Introduction, but I think it's rather ill-considered. If my implementation is consistent with the language reference, on what grounds would someone claim it was not an implementation of Python but a "different language"?
- uxp8u61q 3y ago
  On the grounds that we live in the real world, not a world where anything written down is a true and complete description of reality. "Technically correct" is sometimes a synonym of "incorrect".
  - pdonis 3y ago
    By your criterion, no programming language has a language specification at all. I don't think that's a useful way to look at things. I would like to see some indication from the people who say that the Python Language Reference I gave a link to does not qualify as "language specification", of what would qualify. Specific examples would be nice.

pdonis 3y ago

> If you're writing a Python implementation and have a question, this may not answer it. Depends on the question. If your question is, say, "how should I implement the built-in types", yes, the language reference won't answer that question. But if your question is "what does my implementation have to do to count as an implementation of the Python language", then yes, the language reference does answer that question--since the language reference is what defines the Python language. To me that is a "specification" of the Python language. It's not a specification of the implementation of the language, but why should that be required for something to be considered a language specification? The whole point is to specify what is required to define the language without specifying every detail of the implementation.

pdonis 3y ago

> if you were coming from Mars and tried to re-implement Python from this document alone, you might have to guess things and in fact you would probably end up implementing quite a different language Yes, I know that statement is in the Introduction, but I think it's rather ill-considered. If my implementation is consistent with the language reference, on what grounds would someone claim it was not an implementation of Python but a "different language"?

uxp8u61q 3y ago
On the grounds that we live in the real world, not a world where anything written down is a true and complete description of reality. "Technically correct" is sometimes a synonym of "incorrect".
- pdonis 3y ago
  By your criterion, no programming language has a language specification at all. I don't think that's a useful way to look at things. I would like to see some indication from the people who say that the Python Language Reference I gave a link to does not qualify as "language specification", of what would qualify. Specific examples would be nice.