Paul,
Thanks for the feedback!
By shared learning outcome I'm assuming you mean a specific skill or
item of knowledge that has been explained and practiced/exercised
during the dojo? If so, then the honest answer is no, we don't have
specific learning outcomes defined.
I suspect this is
Nicholas Tollervey wrote:
[snip...]
Finally, http://www.pythonchallenge.com/ has always struck me as a fun
thing to do in a group with the simple aim of expanding one's
knowledge of Python's capabilities and libraries. Perhaps something
fun for a Xmas "special"..?
This sounds like a great
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:29:33PM +0100, Paul Nasrat wrote:
> I've looked through the skeletal code on github and that looks like a
> good start.
The lines in the test code which look like this:
assert state == [ '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', ]
are somewhat making the assumpt
Jon Ribbens wrote:
On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 10:29:33PM +0100, Paul Nasrat wrote:
I've looked through the skeletal code on github and that looks like a
good start.
The lines in the test code which look like this:
assert state == [ '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', '_', ]
are
inline
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Also I'd like to put in a strong vote for part of the spec being that
the game will allow human v human, human v computer, or computer v
computer games (by entering "number of players: zero" ;-) )
We talked about this during the dojo planning meetup last week. We all
again!
Jonathan Hartley wrote:
inline
Jon Ribbens wrote:
Also I'd like to put in a strong vote for part of the spec being that
the game will allow human v human, human v computer, or computer v
computer games (by entering "number of players: zero" ;-) )
We talked about this during the dojo
Jon,
It's fantastic to see people engaged already but I think it best we
keep hold of our thoughts until Dojo - that way all participants start
the Dojo without having to read email exchanges here and elsewhere.
As the comments in the code suggest, everything is open to change and
we've o
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 12:55:37PM +0100, Nicholas Tollervey wrote:
> It's fantastic to see people engaged already but I think it best we keep
> hold of our thoughts until Dojo - that way all participants start the
> Dojo without having to read email exchanges here and elsewhere.
Yes, I am tryin
During the dojo its most likely that you will encounter an implementation
detail that does not agree with you.
In this situation (as in most implementation scenarios) you'll have to weigh
up the costs of refactoring the code vs trudging along with it , given a
very tight timeframe and a nagging des
Hi,
On Sep/28/2009, Jon Ribbens wrote:
> Also I'd like to put in a strong vote for part of the spec being that
> the game will allow human v human, human v computer, or computer v
> computer games (by entering "number of players: zero" ;-) )
Yes Dr. Falken!
Sadly I will not be able to attend o
10 matches
Mail list logo
