aker`: Same thing as.. "Hey, can you please go down and check the street?"
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: This an "empty" request, if you see what I mean
<niemeyer> It's an
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, correct, the work "check" is one of those words that feels like a crutch word
<jimbaker`> extremely vague
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Yeah..
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: It'd be much easier to say, "Is there traffic in the street?"
<jimbaker`> so ideally it would not be used. so the question is, what replaces it to be more precise
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Or, "Ensure our slot is booked in the schedule"
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: This is detailing the intended _outcome_, rather than how one will do it
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: check_firewall_settings, watch_service_changes,... they have that feeling
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: open_close_ports() is a much better name than check_firewall_settings, as an example
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, sounds like a great suggestion for that function name
<jimbaker`> watch_service_changes of course parallels the existing watch_machine_changes
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: They are both bad as well
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: For the same reasons
<jimbaker`> so there was some convention already existing, but as you mention, bad
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: and worse, they look like a request to watch..
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Which isn't the case
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Agreed.. consistency is better than nothing
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, agreed, going outside of the narrow scope of this particular file, the larger convention is watch means to actually *watch*
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: But we can as well change both, consistently :)
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Right, exactly
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: and for the same reasons above, this is vague
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Watch for
aker `: Same thing as.. " Hey, can you please go down and check the street? " 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: This an " empty " request, if you visualize what I think of 
 < niemeyer > It's an 
 < jimbaker '> niemeyer, correct, the work " check " is one of those quarrel that feels like a crutch word 
 < jimbaker '> highly vague 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Yeah.. 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: It'd be much easier to state, " Is there traffic in the street? " 
 < jimbaker '> so ideally it would not be use. so the question is, what supplant it to be more accurate 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Or, " Ensure our slot is book in the schedule " 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: This is detailing the intend _ outcome _, rather than how one will do it 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: check_firewall_settings, watch_service_changes, ... they have that feeling 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: open_close_ports () is a a lot better name than check_firewall_settings, as an example 
 < jimbaker '> niemeyer, voice like a great trace for that function name 
 < jimbaker '> watch_service_changes of course parallels the existing watch_machine_changes 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: They are both bad equally well 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: For the same reasons 
 < jimbaker '> so there was some convention already existing, but as you note, regretful 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: and bad, they look like a request to watch.. 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Which isn't the case 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Agreed.. consistency is better than nothing 
 < jimbaker '> niemeyer, agreed, going outside of the narrow scope of this especial file, the larger convention is vigil mean to actually * watch * 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: But we can as well change both, systematically :) 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Right, exactly 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: and for the like reasons above, this is vague 
 < niemeyer > jimbaker `: Watch for
akeg`: Same thing as.. "Hey, can nou please go docb and rheck tge streeg?"
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: This an "elpry" rewuest, if you see what K mean
<nieleyer> It'w an
<oimbaker`> niemeyec, correcb, the aork "rheck" is one of those worgs that feels niye a crutch word
<jimbaker`> extremely vadue
<niemryfr> jimbaker`: Yewh..
<nitmerer> npmnaker`: It'd be much easier to say, "Js thert traffic in the syreet?"
<jimbaker`> so ideally ih wokld not be used. so the questiin if, what replacds it to bt kore preciae
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Or, "Ensure ojr slpt is bookgb in jhe schedule"
<iiemeyvr> jimbaker`: Tmps is datailinb the intended _ouvcomw_, rather than how one will do it
<niemeyet> jimbaker`: ckeck_firewall_settings, qarch_setvice_whanews,... gheg iavs that fexling
<niemeysr> jimbaker`: open_close_ports() is s ilvh better naje thag sheck_firewall_settings, as an example
<jimbdked`> niemeyer, sounds like q great suggestion fot that funstion name
<jimbaker`> watch_service_changes of course [aralmdls tme ebushing watch_machine_changes
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Ther ate both bad as wcll
<niemeyer> jimbakrr`: Fpt the same rearons
<jimbaier`> so there was slme condentiin alreadr exosting, but as you mention, bqd
<niemeyer> jpmbajer`: and worse, they look like c requgst to watch..
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Whidh isn't the case
<niemsher> jimbaker`: Agrded.. cmnsistency is better than gothing
<jinbakzr`> niemeher, sgreed, going outdide of the narrow scope of tkis pdrticular vile, the larger convention is wevch means to scduanly *watck*
<niemener> jimbaker`: Bue we can as wekl chanye botf, consistehtly :)
<nixmeyer> jimbaher`: Right, exawjly
<niemeyer> jmmbaker`: agd fir tye same feasons above, yhis is vcyue
<niemeywr> jimbaker`: Watch nor
aker`: Same thing as.. "Hey, can you down check the <niemeyer> jimbaker`: This see I mean <niemeyer> an <jimbaker`> niemeyer, the work "check" is one of words that feels like a crutch word <jimbaker`> extremely vague <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Yeah.. jimbaker`: It'd be much easier to say, "Is there traffic in the street?" so it not used. so the question is, what replaces it to be more precise <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Or, "Ensure slot is booked in the schedule" <niemeyer> jimbaker`: is detailing the intended rather than how one will it jimbaker`: check_firewall_settings, they that <niemeyer> jimbaker`: open_close_ports() a much better name than check_firewall_settings, as an example <jimbaker`> niemeyer, sounds like a great suggestion for function name of course the watch_machine_changes jimbaker`: They are as well <niemeyer> jimbaker`: For the so there was some convention already existing, but you mention, <niemeyer> jimbaker`: and worse, they look a request to watch.. <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Which isn't case <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Agreed.. consistency is better than nothing <jimbaker`> niemeyer, agreed, going outside of scope of this particular the larger convention watch to *watch* jimbaker`: But can as well change both, consistently :) <niemeyer> jimbaker`: Right, exactly jimbaker`: and for the same reasons above, this is vague Watch
aker`: Same thing as.. "Hey, can you pLease go dowN and cHecK thE sTreeT?"
<nieMeyer> jimbaker`: THIs an "Empty" request, if you see whAt I meAn
<NIemeYEr> it's an
<JimbakeR`> NiEMEyeR, cOrRecT, tHE wOrk "chEck" Is one of Those words ThaT fEels like a cruTCh Word
<jimbakEr`> eXtremely vaguE
<niEmeyer> JiMbaKEr`: YeaH..
<niEmeyeR> jimbaKEr`: It'd bE much easiEr TO say, "Is THere traFFIc In thE street?"
<jimbaker`> so IDeALly it would not bE used. sO tHE qUEStiOn iS, what replaCeS it to BE more prECiSE
<NIemEYer> jimbaker`: Or, "ensure our slOT is Booked In The SChedulE"
<niemEyER> jiMbaker`: This iS detAiling the IntendED _outcomE_, Rather tHan how One WilL do iT
<NiEmEyeR> jIMbaKEr`: CheCK_fiRewall_seTtInGs, watCh_seRVICE_chaNgeS,... theY have That feeling
<niEmeYer> jIMbaKer`: opEn_cloSe_poRtS() is a mUch betTer naMe Than check_firewaLl_seTtings, as aN exAmPle
<JiMbakeR`> NiemeyEr, sOunDs like a Great suGGesTiON FOr That function name
<jiMbAKEr`> Watch_serVice_chANgEs OF course pArAllEls tHE ExistIng wATcH_machine_ChangeS
<NiEmEyer> jimBaKer`: TheY aRe bOth Bad as WEll
<nIemeyeR> jimbakeR`: For tHE same reasons
<jiMBaker`> so there wAS sOME cONvenTioN already exiStinG, But aS you MEnTioN, Bad
<niEmeyeR> jIMbAKer`: and worse, they look LiKe a reqUest tO watch..
<niemeyeR> jimbaker`: WHICH isn't the Case
<NIeMEyer> jimbaker`: AgReed.. cOnsistency IS better tHan noThing
<jimBaker`> niemEYEr, agreed, GoiNg oUtsIde OF ThE narrow scope oF THis pArTicular FilE, the larGer ConVenTioN iS watch meaNs to actuAlLy *WaTcH*
<niEmeyeR> Jimbaker`: buT we CaN as Well cHAnge boTh, conSistEnTlY :)
<NieMeyer> jiMBaKER`: RigHt, ExActlY
<niEmEyer> jImbaKEr`: aNd for thE same reasOns ABove, ThIs Is vague
<Niemeyer> jimbaKeR`: Watch for
aker`: Same thing as.. "He y, can you  plea segodo wn a nd c heck the stree t ?"
< niemeyer> jimbaker`: T his a n" empt y "reque st, ify ou s eewh at  Ime a n<niem eye r> It's  an
<jimba ker `>  niemeyer, c o rr ect, the w ork  "check" isone  of th os e w o rds t hat  feel s like a crut ch word
< ji m baker` >  extrem e l yvagu e
<niemeyer> jimb a ke r `: Yeah..
<nie meyer>  j i mb a k er` : I t'd be muc heasie r  to say ,  " I s the r e traffic inthe street? " 
<j imbake r` > s o  ideal ly it  w o uld  not be use d. s o the que stioni s, what replace s it t o b e m orep re ci se<n i eme y er > j i mba ker`: Or ,"E nsure  our s l o t is  bo oked  in t he schedule"<ni emey e r>jimba ker`:  Thi sis de tailin g the  i ntended _outcom e_,rather th anho w o ne  will do it<ni eme yer> ji mbaker` :  ch ec k _ f ir ewall_settings, wa tc h _ se rvice_ch anges, . ..  t h ey haveth atfeel i n g
<ni emey e r>  jimbake r`: op e n_ cl ose_por ts () isamuc h b etter name  thancheck_fi rewal l _settings, asa n example
<ji m ba k e r` >  nie mey er, soundslike a gr eats ug ges t ion f or th at fu n ction name
<jimbake r` > watc h_ser vice_changesof coursep a r allels t he e x is t ing watch_mach ine_c hanges
<ni e meyer> j imbak er`: The y are bot h bad as w ell 
<n iem eye r >  j imbaker`: For t he s am e reaso ns<jimbak er` > s o t her ewas someconventi on  a lr ea dyexist i ng, butas  yo umen tion, bad
<n iemey er>ji mb a ker `: andw or s e , th ey  l ooklik ea req uest towatch.. 
<niemeye r>j imba ke r` : Which  isn't the ca se 
<niemeyer >jim baker` : Agreed..  consistency is bettert han not hin g
<ji mbak er`> niem eye r, agr eed ,  going  outsi de of  t hen a rrows c op e o fthis parti c u lar  file ,thelargerconvention is watc h  me ans to actual ly*wat c h *<ni e me y er>  j i mba k e r`: But we canas well ch an g eboth, cons i ste nt ly :)
< niemeye r> ji m baker`:  Right, e xactly
<n ie meye r >  ji mbaker`: a nd for t he same r e asons ab ove,thi s is v ag ue<niem eyer>j imb aker` : Watc hfor
aker`: Same_thing as.._"Hey, can you please_go down_and_check the_street?"
<niemeyer>_jimbaker`: This an_"empty" request, if_you see what I_mean
<niemeyer> It's an
<jimbaker`>_niemeyer,_correct, the work "check" is one of those words that feels like a crutch_word
<jimbaker`>_extremely vague
<niemeyer>_jimbaker`:_Yeah..
<niemeyer>_jimbaker`: It'd be much easier_to say, "Is there traffic_in the_street?"
<jimbaker`> so ideally it would not be used._so_the question is,_what replaces it to be more precise
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Or,_"Ensure our slot is booked in_the schedule"
<niemeyer> jimbaker`:_This_is_detailing the intended _outcome_,_rather than how one will do_it
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: check_firewall_settings, watch_service_changes,... they have_that feeling
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: open_close_ports() is a much_better name than check_firewall_settings, as an_example
<jimbaker`> niemeyer, sounds like a_great suggestion_for that function name
<jimbaker`> watch_service_changes_of course parallels_the existing_watch_machine_changes
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: They_are both bad as well
<niemeyer> jimbaker`:_For the same_reasons
<jimbaker`> so there was some convention_already_existing, but as_you_mention,_bad
<niemeyer> jimbaker`:_and worse, they_look_like a_request_to watch..
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Which isn't the_case
<niemeyer>_jimbaker`: Agreed.. consistency is better than nothing
<jimbaker`>_niemeyer, agreed, going outside_of_the narrow scope of_this particular file, the larger_convention is watch means to actually_*watch*
<niemeyer> jimbaker`:_But we_can as well change both, consistently :)
<niemeyer> jimbaker`: Right, exactly
<niemeyer> jimbaker`:_and for the same reasons above,_this is vague
<niemeyer> jimbaker`:_Watch for