Paul Moore writes: > It *is* merged and publicly released - it's in the latest 3.10 > alpha.
Merged, yes, but in my terminology alphas, betas, and rcs aren't "public releases", they're merely "accessible to the public". (I'm happy to adopt your terminology when you're in the conversation, I'm just explaining what I meant in my previous post.) > The fact that the implementation kept getting referred to as the > "reference implementation" confused me into thinking it hadn't been > released yet, and that simply isn't true. Calling it "the > implementation" avoids that confusion, IMO. The only thing I understand in that paragraph is "that [it hadn't been released yet] simply isn't true", which is true enough on your definition of "released". But why does "reference implementation" connote "unreleased"? That seems to be quite different from Mark's usage. I don't have an objection to your usage, I'd just like us all to converge on a set of terms so that Brandt has a compact way of saying "as far as I know, for the specification under discussion this implementation is completely accurate and folks are welcome to refer to the PEP, to the code, or to divergences as seems appropriate to them". I'm not sure if that's exactly what Brandt meant by "reference implementation", but that's how I understood it. Steve _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/JLDWPW52OXGR27W4GFGU4GVDOXA6PXGD/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
