On Wed, Jun 4, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Paul Sokolovsky email@example.com wrote:
That said, and unlike previous attempts to develop a small Python implementations (which of course existed), we're striving to be exactly a Python language implementation, not a Python-like language implementation. As there's no formal, implementation-independent language spec, what constitutes a compatible language implementation is subject to opinions, and we welcome and appreciate independent review, like this thread did.
Actually, there is a "formal, implementation-independent language spec":
Realistically, most Python code that works on Python 3.4 won't work on Micropython (for various reasons, not just the string behavior) and neither does it need to.
That's true. However, as was said, we're striving to provide a compatible implementation, and compatibility claims must be validated. While we have simple "in-house" testsuite, more serious compatibility validation requires running a testsuite for reference implementation (CPython), and that's gradually being approached.
To a large extent the test suite in http://hg.python.org/cpython/file/default/Lib/test effectively validates (full) compliance with the corresponding release (change "default" to the release branch of your choice). With that goal, no small effort has been made to mark implementation-specific tests as such. So uPy could consider using the test suite (and explicitly skip the tests for features that uPy doesn't support).