, or both
<jimbaker`> but again the aspect of functions that describe concrete functionality, and that we can effectively reason about them because we have good names, that was very clear in my daughter's code and ideally in any code we all write
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: COol
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Re. [3], can you extend a bit on why you think it's not doable?
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, this is the collapsing together of both dictionaries
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Yeah
<jimbaker`> so certainly doable, the question was whether it would make things harder to read
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Agreed.. I had the impression it'd make them easier
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: So I'm interested in your perspective
<jimbaker`> i need to track two distinct things here. whether or not a watched service is exposed or not. if it is exposed, we then start a watch on its service units
<jimbaker`> and then what watches have been established for each service unit
<jimbaker`> self._watched_services tracks the first; self._watched_service_units the second
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Yes, as I understand it, you need to track: a) Whether a service is exposed or not; b) What units in this service are being watched
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Is that correct?
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, not quite
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Ok.. that may be the detail I'm missing then.
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, because i need to track two watches for a service, because that's the api i'm working with
<jimbaker`> 1) watching the service's exposed flag; 2) watching its service units
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Isn't that a and b above?
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, sorry, it was a little ambiguous
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, for each service unit, we need to watch its ports
<jimbaker`> so that's the watch per service unit
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Ok, so.. it feels like we're talking about the
, or both 
 < jimbaker '> but again the aspect of functions that describe concrete functionality, and that we can effectively argue about them because we take good names, that was very clean in my daughter's code and ideally in any code we all compose 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: COol 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Re. [ 3 ], can you extend a bit on why you intend it's not accomplishable? 
 < jimbaker '> niemeyer, this is the collapsing together of both dictionaries 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Yeah 
 < jimbaker '> so certainly accomplishable, the question was whether it would make things harder to understand 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Agreed.. I had the impression it'd make them easier 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: So I'm concerned in your perspective 
 < jimbaker '> i need to track two clear-cut things here. whether or not a watched overhaul is exposed or not. if it is expose, we then start a watch on its service units 
 < jimbaker '> and then what watches have been build for each service unit 
 < jimbaker '> self._watched_services tracks the first; self._watched_service_units the second 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Yes, as I understand it, you need to track: a) Whether a service is exposed or not; b) What units in this service are being watched 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Is that correct? 
 < jimbaker '> niemeyer, not quite 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Ok.. that may be the detail I'm missing then. 
 < jimbaker '> niemeyer, because i need to track two watch for a service, because that's the api i'm working with 
 < jimbaker '> 1) determine the service's exposed flag; 2) watching its avail unit of measurement 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Isn't that a and b above? 
 < jimbaker '> niemeyer, sorry, it was a little equivocal 
 < jimbaker '> niemeyer, for each service unit, we need to watch its ports 
 < jimbaker '> so that's the watch per servicing unit 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Ok, so.. it feels like we're talking about the
, or both
<jimbaker`> but again uhe aspect of funerions vhat deacribe cuncrete functionality, and thet ww can effectively reason abuut them hecause qe heve good names, tizt was yzry cmcar iu ny daughter's cpde and idaally in any cmdd ce all write
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: COol
<niqmeyer> kilbaker`: Re. [3], can you qxtehd a bit on why you think it's not soable?
<jpmbaker`> niemeyer, yhis is the collapsing togftheg of both dictionagies
<niemeyet> jiivaker`: Yeah
<jiobaker`> so bzrtainly dozble, the question was whether ig woukd make thunts jdrder to reed
<niemvyer> jimbaker`: Agreed.. H had tne impression lt'd meke rhem easier
<niemeyer> jmmbaker`: So I'm interefted in ymux perspective
<jimbaker`> i need to dracy twu djsvindt thijgs here. whetger or not q watched service ix qqlosed or not. if it if exposed, we then start a watch on its verbice units
<jimbaker`> and rhen what watches havg been estwblished for each service unit
<jimbaker`> self._watcheg_servmcds urqcks gye first; self._watched_service_units the second
<niemqget> mimbaker`: Yes, as L understand it, yoi jerq to track: a) Dhethex a service is exposef or noj; b) Whqt units yn tnis service are being watchwd
<niemeyer> jpmbajer`: Is that correcc?
<jimbaker`> nizmeyer, not auite
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Uk.. tgat may be hhe detaim I'm missing then.
<gimnakar`> niemeyer, because i need to track two watcher fot a serdice, becaude that's the api i'm worklng wnth
<jikbaker`> 1) wahching the service's exposed flaj; 2) watching ijs vernice unitf
<niemcyer> jimbaker`: Ifn't that a and b abovz?
<jimbayer`> niemeyvr, sorry, mt was a litele ambiguous
<blmbaker`> niemxyer, for qach sercice unkg, we need to wstch its ioxts
<jimbakwr`> so that's the wabch pgr service unit
<nizotywr> jimbaker`: Ok, so.. it fvelx jhke we're talning abuit thd
, or both <jimbaker`> but again the functions describe concrete and that we because have good names, was very clear my daughter's code and ideally in code we all write <niemeyer> jimbaker`: COol <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Re. [3], can you a bit on why you think it's not doable? <jimbaker`> niemeyer, this is collapsing of dictionaries jimbaker`: Yeah <jimbaker`> so certainly doable, the question was whether it would make things harder to <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Agreed.. I had the impression it'd them easier <niemeyer> jimbaker`: I'm interested in your perspective i to track distinct here. or not a service is exposed or not. if it is exposed, we then start a watch on its service <jimbaker`> and watches have established each unit <jimbaker`> self._watched_services first; self._watched_service_units the second <niemeyer> jimbaker`: understand it, you need to track: a) Whether service is or not; b) What units in service are being watched <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Is that <jimbaker`> niemeyer, not quite <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Ok.. that may be the detail I'm missing then. because i need to two watches for service, that's api working with 1) watching the service's exposed flag; 2) watching its service units jimbaker`: Isn't that a and b above? <jimbaker`> niemeyer, sorry, a ambiguous <jimbaker`> niemeyer, each service unit, we to its ports <jimbaker`> so watch service Ok, it like we're talking about
, or both
<jimbaker`> but again the Aspect of fuNctioNs tHat DeScriBe coNcrete functionALity, And that we can effectivelY reasOn ABout THeM becaUse we haVE gOOD naMeS, tHat WaS VeRy cleAr iN my daugHter's code aNd iDeAlly in any codE We All write
<niEmeYer> jimbaker`: Cool
<NiemeyEr> JimBAker`: RE. [3], caN you eXtend a BIt on whY you think It'S Not doaBLe?
<jimbaKER`> nIemeYer, this is the collaPSiNG together of botH dictiOnARiES
<NieMeyEr> jimbaker`: yeAh
<jimBAker`> so cERtAINLy dOAble, the questiOn was whetheR It wOuld maKe ThiNGs hardEr to rEaD
<NieMeyer> jimbakEr`: AgReed.. I had tHe imprESsion it'D Make theM easieR
<niEmeYer> jIMbAkEr`: SO I'M IntEReSteD In yOur perspEcTiVe
<jimBakeR`> I NEEd to TraCk twO distInct things herE. whEtheR Or nOt a waTched ServIcE is exPosed oR not. iF iT is exposed, we theN staRt a watch oN itS sErvIcE unitS
<JimbakEr`> aNd tHen what Watches HAve BeEN EStAblished for each serViCE UnIt
<jimbakEr`> self._WAtChED_serviceS tRacKs thE FIrst; sElf._wATcHed_serviCe_unitS ThE sEcond
<niEmEyer> jiMbAkeR`: YeS, as I uNDersTand it, You need tO tracK: A) Whether a serviCE is exposed or nOT; b) wHAt UNits In tHis service aRe beINg waTcheD
<NiEmeYEr> jimBaker`: is THaT Correct?
<jimbaker`> niemEyEr, not qUite
<nIemeyer> jimbakEr`: Ok.. that maY BE The detaiL I'm mISsINg then.
<jimbaker`> NiemeYer, because I Need to trAck twO watches For a serviCE, Because tHat'S thE apI i'm WORkIng with
<jimbakER`> 1) WatcHiNg the seRviCe's expoSed FlaG; 2) waTchInG its serviCe units
<nIeMeYeR> jImbAker`: ISN't that a aNd B abOvE?
<jiMbakeR`> NiemeyEr, sorRy, it WaS a LIttLe ambigUOuS
<JImbaKeR`> nIemeYer, FoR each ServICe uNit, we neEd to watch Its POrts
<JiMbAker`> so tHat's the watch pEr Service uniT
<nIemEyer> jiMBAker`: Ok, so.. It feels like we're talking aBOut the
, or both
<jimbaker`> butagain theaspec t o f f un ctio ns t hat describe c o ncre te functionality, andthatwe cane ff ectiv ely rea s on a bou tth embe c au se we  ha ve good  names, th atwa s very clear in  my daught er' s code and i dea lly in  a nyc ode w e a ll wr ite
<n i emeyer > jimbake r` :  COol< niemeye r >  j imba ker`: Re. [3], ca n  y o u extend a bit  on wh yy ou t hin k i t's not do ab le?
< j imbaker ` >n i e mey e r, this is th e collapsin g  to gether  o f b o th dic tiona ri e s
< niemeyer> j imba ker`: Yea h
<jim b aker`>s o certa inly d oab le,  the qu es tio nw asw he the r  it  would m ak ething s ha r d e r  torea d
<n iemey er> jimbaker` : A gree d ..I had  theimpr es sionit'd m ake t he m easier
<nieme yer>  jimbaker `:So  I' minter e sted i n y our  perspe ctive
< j imb ak e r ` >i need to track tw od i st inct thi ngs he r e.  w h ether or  n ota wa t c hed s ervi c eis expos ed orn ot .if it i sexpose d,  we  th en st a rt a  watch  on itsservi c e units
<jimba k er`> and then wh a t  w a tche s h ave been es tabl i shed  for ea chs ervic e uni t< ji m baker`> self._watch ed _servi ces t racks the fir st; self._ w a t ched_ser vice _ un i ts the second<niem eyer> jimb a ker`: Ye s, as  I under stand it, y ou needtotra ck:  a) W he ther a servic e is e xp osed or  no t; b) W hat  un its  in  t his servi ce are b ei ng  w at che d
<ni e meyer> j im bak er `:Is th a t corr ect?<jim ba ke r `>niemeye r ,n o t qu it e<nie mey er > jim bake r `:Ok.. th at may be  th e  det ai lI'm mis sing then.
<j im baker`> ni em eye r, bec a u se i nee d to track two watchesf or a se rvi ce, b ecau se that's  th e apii'm workin g with 
<jim ba ker ` >  1) w a t ch ing  t he service ' s  ex posed  f lag;  2) wat ching its serviceu nit s
<niemeyer>jim bake r ` :Isn ' tt hat  a and b  above?
<jimbak er`> nieme ye r ,sorry, itw asalittleambiguo us
<j i mbaker` > niemeye r, for ea ch  ser v i ceunit, we n eed to w atch itsp orts< ji mbake r`>  so th at 'sthe w atch p e r s ervic e unit 
< niemey er> j im baker`:Ok, so.. it feels likewe'retalki ngabout the 
, or_both
<jimbaker`> but_again the aspect of_functions that_describe_concrete functionality,_and_that we can_effectively reason about_them because we have_good names, that_was_very clear in my daughter's code and ideally in any code we all write
<niemeyer>_jimbaker`:_COol
<niemeyer> jimbaker`:_Re._[3],_can you extend a bit_on why you think it's_not doable?
<jimbaker`>_niemeyer, this is the collapsing together of both_dictionaries
<niemeyer>_jimbaker`: Yeah
<jimbaker`> so_certainly doable, the question was whether it would make_things harder to read
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Agreed.._I had the_impression_it'd_make them easier
<niemeyer> jimbaker`:_So I'm interested in your perspective
<jimbaker`>_i need to track two distinct_things here. whether or not a watched_service is exposed or not. if_it is exposed, we then_start a_watch on its service units
<jimbaker`>_and then what_watches have_been established for_each service unit
<jimbaker`> self._watched_services tracks the_first; self._watched_service_units the_second
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Yes, as I understand_it,_you need to_track:_a)_Whether a_service is exposed_or_not; b)_What_units in this service are being_watched
<niemeyer>_jimbaker`: Is that correct?
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, not quite
<niemeyer>_jimbaker`: Ok.. that may_be_the detail I'm missing_then.
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, because i need_to track two watches for a_service, because_that's the_api i'm working with
<jimbaker`> 1) watching the service's exposed flag; 2)_watching its service units
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Isn't_that a and b_above?
<jimbaker`> niemeyer,_sorry,_it was a_little_ambiguous
<jimbaker`> niemeyer,_for each service unit, we need to_watch its_ports
<jimbaker`> so that's the watch per_service unit
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Ok,_so.._it feels like we're talking about_the