I would say that that is intended as documentation for users (includong implementors of tools targeting the language), not a specification for implementors of Python, but I would agree that it is largely usable in either role; my point in the GP was that something distinct called “the Python Language Specification” doesn't exist, but that a (not necessarily complete, from a language implementors perspective) specification distinct from the implementation behavior of CPython does effectively exist in the documentation.
I don't see why not. The "Introduction" section specifically mentions different implementations and distinguishes implementation details, which can vary by implementation, from the language reference itself, which defines what every implementation has to meet to be considered an implementation of the Python language.
> my point in the GP was that something distinct called “the Python Language Specification” doesn't exist
And that's the point I'm disputing; AFAIK the language reference I linked to is that something distinct, even if it isn't called a "Language Specification" but instead a "Language Reference". Either way it defines what the Python language is.
So, we rather explicitly agree that Python has nothing called a “language specification”, but that its published first party documentation includes what is, functionally, a specification of the language distinct from CPython implementation details?
> we rather explicitly agree that Python has nothing called a “language specification”
No, we don't. I have already said explicitly that I think the Python Language Reference is such a thing. (I am ignoring quibbles about it being called a "reference" instead of a "specification".) If you think it isn't, why? What does count as a "language specification" in your view? Do you have any specific examples that you can contrast with Python?
This implies that, if CPython differs from that specification in any way, it is not, in fact, Python. What have I been using all these years, I wonder?
