Re: [Python-ideas] Python certification
edu-sig may be a good list for such a discussion; though you may find more information on Python lessons aligned with CS/Science curriculum standards than professional certification. https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/edu-sig > This list is for discussion of Python in education, however (at the request of a majority of readers) explicitly excluding educational politics. https://www.google.com/search?q=python+certification+psf - Wiki content from 2008 - https://www.quora.com/Is-there-any-certification-for-a-Python-programmer On Thursday, August 9, 2018, Steven D'Aprano wrote: > On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 06:40:23PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote: > > Hi Oleg > > > > You wrote > > > > >In what way certification programs are related to documentation, > > > especially to the tutorial? > > > > One way is through syllabus. Necessarily, a certification via exam > > requires a syllabus (or a course of study). There is, implicitly, a > > syllabus in https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/. > > I think that Oleg asked the wrong question. With sufficient imagination, > it is always possible to draw *some* kind of relationship or connection > between virtually any two concepts, "six degrees of separation" kind of > thing. > > A better question is, how are questions about third-party certification > programmes on-topic to this mailing list? > > "This list is to contain discussion of speculative language ideas > for Python for possible inclusion into the language." > - https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > > Third-party certification is not a speculative language idea for Python. > It's not even an idea for documentation about existing language > features. Third-party trainers and teachers may, or may not, mine the > standard Python docs and tutorial for concepts, but regardless of > whether they do or not, I think that discussions about third-party > certification programmes are off-topic and should be taken to either a > specialised mailing list or SIG (if there is one): > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo > > or to Python-List. > > > -- > Steve > ___ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Python certification
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 06:40:23PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote: > Hi Oleg > > You wrote > > >In what way certification programs are related to documentation, > > especially to the tutorial? > > One way is through syllabus. Necessarily, a certification via exam > requires a syllabus (or a course of study). There is, implicitly, a > syllabus in https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/. I think that Oleg asked the wrong question. With sufficient imagination, it is always possible to draw *some* kind of relationship or connection between virtually any two concepts, "six degrees of separation" kind of thing. A better question is, how are questions about third-party certification programmes on-topic to this mailing list? "This list is to contain discussion of speculative language ideas for Python for possible inclusion into the language." - https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Third-party certification is not a speculative language idea for Python. It's not even an idea for documentation about existing language features. Third-party trainers and teachers may, or may not, mine the standard Python docs and tutorial for concepts, but regardless of whether they do or not, I think that discussions about third-party certification programmes are off-topic and should be taken to either a specialised mailing list or SIG (if there is one): https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo or to Python-List. -- Steve ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Python certification
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 10:40 AM, Jonathan Fine wrote: > There is, implicitly, a > syllabus in https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/. > The tutorial, is, well, a tutorial, it is by no means a complete course of study. So no, I don't think it's an appropriate place to start to develop a certification. Here's a couple of Python syllabuses (the first proprietary, the > second perhaps open) > > https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/learning/exam-98-381.aspx > https://pythoninstitute.org/pcap-exam-syllabus/ I am developing this: https://uwpce-pythoncert.github.io/PythonCertDevel/index.html Which we use for a "Certificate" program, which is NOT a "certification". But I like to think we've put together a pretty good curriculum. I hope this is enough to persuade you that this topic is appropriate > for python-ideas. Of course, if you know a better forum for this, that > would be welcome. This really isn't the right forum -- maybe the tutor list? https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor But if you think you want to develop a certification, you need to find like-minded people to do it. -CHB -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception chris.bar...@noaa.gov ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Syntactic sugar to declare partial functions
I prefer partial since many programmers studied computer science, and also it makes the concepts easier to google. Anyway, I don't actually want either a partial member nor new syntax for this, but if I had to choose, I'd choose no new syntax. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 2:32 PM Abe Dillon wrote: > I'd like to push for the less jargon-y `func.given()` version if this > gains traction. Not only is it shorter, it's a much more common term with a > clear meaning. Words like 'partial', 'curry', 'lambda', and 'closure' are > fine for text books, published papers, and technical discussion, but I > think they would (or do in the case of 'lambda') harm Python. I know the > correct term for the 'if-else' expression is a 'ternary' expression, but > that doesn't mean Python should have used the word 'ternary' in the syntax. > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Neil Girdhar > wrote: > >> That's a nicer solution to me. >> >> On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:00 PM Michel Desmoulin < >> desmoulinmic...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I'd rather have functools.partial() to be added as a new method on >>> function objects. >>> >>> > >>> > fromfunctools importpartial >>> > >>> > >>> > def add(x:int,y:int)->int: >>> > returnx +y >>> > >>> > >>> > add_2 = partial(add,2) >>> > >>> >>> Would become: >>> >>> add_2 = add.partial(2) >>> >>> Nothing to change on the parser, no obscure syntax for future readers, >>> and we can get the opportunity of rewriting partial() in C as right now >>> it is amazingly way, way slower than a lambda. >>> ___ >>> Python-ideas mailing list >>> Python-ideas@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >>> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >>> >>> -- >>> >>> --- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "python-ideas" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/python-ideas/jOMinivFCcQ/unsubscribe. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> python-ideas+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >>> >> >> ___ >> Python-ideas mailing list >> Python-ideas@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >> >> > ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Syntactic sugar to declare partial functions
I'd like to push for the less jargon-y `func.given()` version if this gains traction. Not only is it shorter, it's a much more common term with a clear meaning. Words like 'partial', 'curry', 'lambda', and 'closure' are fine for text books, published papers, and technical discussion, but I think they would (or do in the case of 'lambda') harm Python. I know the correct term for the 'if-else' expression is a 'ternary' expression, but that doesn't mean Python should have used the word 'ternary' in the syntax. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 12:14 PM, Neil Girdhar wrote: > That's a nicer solution to me. > > On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:00 PM Michel Desmoulin > wrote: > >> I'd rather have functools.partial() to be added as a new method on >> function objects. >> >> > >> > fromfunctools importpartial >> > >> > >> > def add(x:int,y:int)->int: >> > returnx +y >> > >> > >> > add_2 = partial(add,2) >> > >> >> Would become: >> >> add_2 = add.partial(2) >> >> Nothing to change on the parser, no obscure syntax for future readers, >> and we can get the opportunity of rewriting partial() in C as right now >> it is amazingly way, way slower than a lambda. >> ___ >> Python-ideas mailing list >> Python-ideas@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas >> Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "python-ideas" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ >> topic/python-ideas/jOMinivFCcQ/unsubscribe. >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> python-ideas+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > ___ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Python certification
Hi Oleg You wrote >In what way certification programs are related to documentation, > especially to the tutorial? One way is through syllabus. Necessarily, a certification via exam requires a syllabus (or a course of study). There is, implicitly, a syllabus in https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/. Here's a couple of Python syllabuses (the first proprietary, the second perhaps open) https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/learning/exam-98-381.aspx https://pythoninstitute.org/pcap-exam-syllabus/ I think it would help, to compare such syllabuses to the one implicit in the Python Tutorial. It may be, of course, that there's somewhere better than python-ideas for having the related discussion. I hope this is enough to persuade you that this topic is appropriate for python-ideas. Of course, if you know a better forum for this, that would be welcome. -- Jonathan ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Syntactic sugar to declare partial functions
That's a nicer solution to me. On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 1:00 PM Michel Desmoulin wrote: > I'd rather have functools.partial() to be added as a new method on > function objects. > > > > > fromfunctools importpartial > > > > > > def add(x:int,y:int)->int: > > returnx +y > > > > > > add_2 = partial(add,2) > > > > Would become: > > add_2 = add.partial(2) > > Nothing to change on the parser, no obscure syntax for future readers, > and we can get the opportunity of rewriting partial() in C as right now > it is amazingly way, way slower than a lambda. > ___ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > > -- > > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the > Google Groups "python-ideas" group. > To unsubscribe from this topic, visit > https://groups.google.com/d/topic/python-ideas/jOMinivFCcQ/unsubscribe. > To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to > python-ideas+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Revisiting dedicated overloadable boolean operators
Adding one operator is hard in Python. Adding 4 operators, just for the sake of a bit of syntaxic suggar for DSL based projects is never going to fly. And I say that as a long time SQLA user. Le 03/08/2018 à 19:46, Todd a écrit : > Coming back to the previous discussion about a new set of overloadable > boolean operators [1], I have an idea for overloadable boolean operators > that I think might work. The idea would be to define four new operators > that take two inputs and return a boolean result based on them. This > behavior can be overridden in appropriate dunder methods. These > operators would have similar precedence to existing logical operators. > The operators would be: > > bNOT - boolean "not" > bAND - boolean "and" > bOR - boolean "or" > bXOR - boolean "xor" > > With corresponding dunder methods: > > __bNOT__ and _rbNOT__ (or __r_bNOT__) > __bAND__ and _rbAND__ (or __r_bAND__) > __bOR__ and _rbOR__ (or __r_bOR__) > __bXOR__ and _rbXOR__ (or __r_bXOR__) > > The basic idea is that the "b" is short for "boolean", and we change the > rest of the operator to upercase to avoid confusions with the existing > operators. I think these operators would be preferably to the proposals > so far (see [1] again) for a few reasons: ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Python certification
On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 05:42:58PM +0100, Jonathan Fine wrote: > Python's excellent documentation, including > https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/, is in my opinion part of the > language. I'm in favour of discussing Patrick's question here, so that > we can perhaps develop something of value that can be added to the > tutorial. > > Is there a forum, better than python-ideas, for discussing speculative > ideas for improving Python's documentation? In what way certification programs are related to documentation, especially to the tutorial? > -- > Jonathan Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmanhttps://phdru.name/p...@phdru.name Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Python certification
Hi Patrick and Oleg Thank you, respectively, for a good question and a helpful response. Patrick asks: > Does anyone know of any PSF approved training or certifications for Python > developers? Oleg writes: > The python-ideas list is for discussing more speculative design ideas of > Python the language and the implementation. According to https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > This list is to contain discussion of speculative language ideas for Python > for possible inclusion into the language. Python's excellent documentation, including https://docs.python.org/3/tutorial/, is in my opinion part of the language. I'm in favour of discussing Patrick's question here, so that we can perhaps develop something of value that can be added to the tutorial. Is there a forum, better than python-ideas, for discussing speculative ideas for improving Python's documentation? -- Jonathan ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] Python certification
Hi! On Thu, Aug 09, 2018 at 03:56:29PM +0100, Patrick Morris wrote: > Hi all > > I know this might be a contentious question but ... > > Does anyone know of any PSF approved training or certifications for Python > developers? > > There is this 10 year old page > https://wiki.python.org/psf/Certification%20Proposal but I dont see any > evidence that this was ever progressed past the discussion of it. Why not ask PSF? See contacts at https://www.python.org/psf/ > Assuming there is no such thing as PSF approval, are there any > certifications / training course that people would recommend, or would > recognise for someone seeking employment with them? I think the question is better suited for comp.lang.python newsgroup/general mailing list. The python-ideas list is for discussing more speculative design ideas of Python the language and the implementation. > thanks > > Patrick Oleg. -- Oleg Broytmanhttps://phdru.name/p...@phdru.name Programmers don't die, they just GOSUB without RETURN. ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
[Python-ideas] Python certification
Hi all I know this might be a contentious question but ... Does anyone know of any PSF approved training or certifications for Python developers? There is this 10 year old page https://wiki.python.org/psf/Certification%20Proposal but I dont see any evidence that this was ever progressed past the discussion of it. Assuming there is no such thing as PSF approval, are there any certifications / training course that people would recommend, or would recognise for someone seeking employment with them? thanks Patrick [cross posted from python-uk list] ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] File format for automatic and manual tests
On Wed, Aug 8, 2018 at 5:09 AM Paul Moore wrote: > This strikes me as *absolutely* something that should be promoted > outside of the stdlib, as a 3rd party project, and once it's > established as a commonly used and accepted standard, only then > propose that the stdlib offer support for it (if that's even needed at > that point). > > Trying to promote a standard by making it "official" and then > encouraging tools to accept it "because it's the official standard" > seems like it's doing things backwards, to me at least. > +1 ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
Re: [Python-ideas] File format for automatic and manual tests
> On 8 Aug 2018, at 12:08, Victor Porton wrote: > >> On 08/08/18 12:25, Barry Scott wrote: >>> On Tuesday, 7 August 2018 22:57:51 BST Victor Porton wrote: >>> This is an idea of a new PEP. >>> >>> I propose to create a portable file format which will list command line >>> options to run Python scripts with dual purpose: >> At the moment I solve this problem with various solutions, depending on >> requirements. >> >> * use python unittest >> * add a test target to a makefile. >> * write a bash script to run the tests and diff output if required >> * on windows do the same with CMD scripts >> * use python to run python in a subprocess that run the tests. >> >> Given all these ways to solve the problem what extra are you looking for? > > As I notes, I want to keep it in sync with PyCharm debug targets. Then work with pycharm to get what you need. > > We need a standard to make PyCharm and others to conform to it. No you need to convince pycharm it is worth implementing. Barry > ___ > Python-ideas mailing list > Python-ideas@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas > Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/ > ___ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
