Sorry for breaking threading, I actually wanted to reply to the post from Daniel Holth, but for some reason I don't have the original. Miki Tebeka wrote:
IMO implementation names should be compatible with PEP-421<http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0421/>.
Also instead of a cryptic long string, maybe some structured one?. For example (JSON): {"implementation":"cpython","machine":"x86_64"} It's longer but more readable IMO (and easier to parse).
+1 See below.
On Wednesday, July 25, 2012 7:55:34 AM UTC-7, Daniel Holth wrote: [...]
The Python implementation is abbreviated. Each implementation has a two-letter code:
py: Generic Python cp: CPython ip: IronPython pp: PyPy jy: Jython
Who would be responsible for registering and tracking these two-letter codes? What counts as "generic python" -- surely if anything is "generic", it is CPython? I can see that you have missed out on a number of existing or experimental implementations, including: Stackless WPython ActivePython CLPython PyMite Python-iPod TinyPy Unladen Swallow CapPython HotPy Skulpt HoPe Berp among others. Some of these may be dead projects; others may be working but not maintained; some are actively maintained. Even if they only have a small number of users, they are still legitimate Python implementations. If there is need to distinguish implementations at all, surely there is a need to distinguish (say) TinyPy from CapPython? I think that this demonstrates the folly of using a central registry of codes for implementations. There are more implementations than just the "big four", and although some of them have the life-expectancy of mayflies, some of them go on for many years. -- Steven