I understand your point about using IronPython as a .NET scripting language (which it is probably fine for), but I still don't think it is 1.0 quality. I'm still willing to work on IronPython, but calling it 1.0 is misleading IMHO.
> Fond as you may be of them, the standard library aren't actually part of the language specification.
That's a tough call. Is file part of the language or the standard library? IronPython's file isn't compliant with CPython's.
> to answer one of his points, the reason that some of these issues haven't already been addressed (in particular the incompatibilities with the re module [1]) is that they weren't flagged until someone noticed !
That's what QA departments are for. Just because bugs haven't been reported, doesn't mean the software is 1.0 quality.
There aren't just hard to detect bugs in re. There are public interfaces left out, for no reason I could assertain, as they would be trivial to implement.
Hmmm... file is part of the core - you don't import it from anywehere. Hopefully thsoe issues get resolved quickly.
I still feel that issues with the re module doesn't mean that the language implementation isn't 1.0 though.
Commenting by HaloScan
