On Wed, 7 Apr 2021 at 06:15, Stephen J. Turnbull <[email protected]> wrote: > > Greg Ewing writes: > > On 7/04/21 5:22 am, Brandt Bucher wrote: > > > we might consider updating those templates if the term "Reference > > > Implementation" implies a higher standard than "we've put in the > > > work to make this happen, and you can try it out here" > > > > Maybe "prototype implementation" would be better? I think I've used > > that term in PEPs before. > > That seems to me to correspond well to Brandt's standard as expressed > above. > > To me, "prototype implementation" is somewhere between "proof of > concept" and "reference implementation", and I welcome the additional > precision. The big question is can such terms be used accurately (ie, > do various people assign similar meanings to them)? > > I would define them functionally as > > proof of concept > demonstrates some of the features, especially those that were > considered "difficult to implement" > > prototype implementation > implements the whole spec, so can be used be developers to > prototype applications, > > reference implementation > intended to be a complete and accurate implementation of the > specification
I'm OK with these terms (although I don't actually think you *will* get sufficient consensus on them to make them unambiguous) but with one proviso - once the implementation is merged into the CPython source, I think it should simply be referred to as "the implementation" and qualifiers should be unnecessary (and should be considered misleading). Paul _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/[email protected]/message/Z73B6K5BYFWG6N6FPIO3S3ZCADCYQ7T6/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/