[Catalog-sig] PyPI trove classifiers for alternate language implementations
tjreedy at udel.edu
Fri Nov 18 22:44:29 CET 2011
On 11/18/2011 6:57 AM, Michael Foord wrote:
> On 18 November 2011 08:31, "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de
> <mailto:martin at v.loewis.de>> wrote:
> Am 15.11.2011 23:53, schrieb Michael Foord:
> > Whilst we're considering new classifiers - any word on this one?
> I lost track: what't the proposal, and what's the consensus?
> Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: CPython
> Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: PyPy
> Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: Jython
> Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: IronPython
> Programming Language :: Python :: Implementation :: Stackless
> There seemed to be agreement that classifiers for the different
> implementations was useful.
> M-A Lemburg suggested adding versions *as well*. Jean-Paul Calderone and
> I thought it was unnecessary as Jython and IronPython are now using
> CPython version numbers and different versions of all the
> implementations tend to target a specific Python language version - for
> which we already have classifiers.
> M-A Lemburg disliked the the "Implementation" part of the classifier (he
> was only -0 on it though). I think it is useful/necessary to have it to
> disambiguate these implementations from other Python-like-languages
> (like Cython and Shedskin) that can be used to write Python extensions.
For the purpose of searching, I cannot see how adding 'implementation'
helps much -- unless there are a lot of other 3rd and 4th level
classifiers that I do not know about. So I am - or + depending on the
As I understand them, Shedskin compiles a subset and Cython a superset
> (As a matter of correctness all of these implementations provide "the
> Python programming language" and strive very hard indeed not to be
> distinct programming languages...)
Terry Jan Reedy
More information about the Catalog-SIG