Python Standardization: Wikipedia entry

[Roy Smith]

In article <mailman.1207.1201577269.896.python-list at python.org>,
 "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote:

> "Paddy" <paddy3118 at googlemail.com> wrote in message 
> news:4dc87a25-1d90-4b66-8fa4-d0d41f48344e at i29g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> |I would value the opinion of fellow Pythoneers who have also
> | contributed to Wikipedia, on the issue of "Is Python Standardized".
> 
> Depends entirely on the operative meaning of standardized.  Formal 
> standards body? Obviously no.
> 
> Specified in a standard-setting document? Yes.  In fact, in someways, 
> Python is better standardized that C, for instance, in that the Python 
> standard usefully standardizes some things that the C standard leaved 
> unstandardized as 'implementation defined'.
> 
> Example 1. Order of evaluation of function arguments.  Python: left to 
> right.  C: undefined (and unstandardized), I believe.
> 
> Example 2: Strings for Infinity and Not-A-Number.  Python: will standardize 
> in 2.6 to hide the variation in C implementations (or is Microsoft just 
> non-compliant here?). 

But, surely Python has plenty of "implementation defined" aspects. 
Especially in the libraries.  Especially those parts of the libraries which 
are thin layers on top of operating system services (os and socket come to 
mind as two highly variable areas).