I've taken to binding "kick" to "next" (a built-in) and "kicking the
can down the road" as my metaphor for iterating over and iterable,
invoking the next API (i.e. kick). It's a pedagogical technique, not
a company coding style. Renaming a built-in is not "normal" practice.
You'll see this further spelled out in my introduction to the examples
(I've been hanging out with the Wikieducator crowd, comparing notes on
South Africa and New Zealand most recently -- open source
I'm submitting a talk entitled "Idiosyncratic Python" [sm] to OSCON
this year, hoping to explain how somewhat pathological code might
nevertheless reinforce clear conceptualization, and therefore stronger
code down the line.
Another example was replacing 'self' with other signature bindings,
driving home some OO concepts and Python's particular implementation
Any language tracing to Monty Python and having snake __ribs__ all
over the place shouldn't complain about "idiosyncratic" right? IP
will likely become a permanent feature of Pythonic pedagogy (PP)
whereas where full blown andragogy is concerned (more inclusive) I
might favor "truly demented" over the "merely idiosyncratic"
(admittedly recruiting more youth that way too -- though some might
run screaming... http://xkcd.com/107/ ).
Our recent User Group meetings have been intensively into Mercurial.
We should offer a full college level course on DVCS and VCS tools,
perhaps through Saturday Academy? I should write to Joyce Cresswell
again. We would want a minimum of two teachers, in keeping with our
digital math teaching philosophy. Jason and Bret?