> What you put in "language" are requirements for conforming implementations. That's a language definition, not a language. Consider a language L which is impl

> What you put in "language" are requirements for conforming implementations. That's a language definition, not a language. Consider a language L which is implemented in implementation language M. Stuff that's written in L is part of the satndard library. Stuff that could have been written in L but is written in M (e.g. for speed) is part of the language. And stuff that is written in M is also part of the language.