Search Ideas

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

An explanation could accompany the n / m display, like a title on hover.

That way, there should never be any confusion as to a mismatch between the total vs rendered number of pending criticisms.

How will people know what n / m means?

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there should never be any confusion as to a mismatch between the total vs rendered number of pending criticisms.

That could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms, which would be bad for error correction.

See #1999: “People could easily miss or forget that.”

People could easily miss or forget that.

Any filtered ideas should show a criticism label displaying n / m for the count, where n is the number of rendered criticisms and m is the number of total criticisms.

That way, there’s never any confusion as to 1) whether a filtered idea has any pending criticisms, 2) a filtered idea having more criticisms than are being rendered.

See #1992: “The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.”

If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people. More generally, any mismatch between rendered vs counted criticisms could confuse people.

If no criticisms are being displayed, yet the label says an idea has n pending criticisms, that might confuse people.

For all ideas, the total number of pending criticisms (if any) should always be shown, even if they are not all being rendered.

The instructions at the top of the page are clear that not all ideas are being rendered.

When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.

That could mislead people into thinking a revision has no pending criticisms.

When cycling back to the revision, it should continue to display only the count of the shown criticisms.

Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same revision.

Bug: when cycling through ‘filtered’ revisions (meaning there are more revisions that don’t lead to the highlighted idea), the criticism badge can change count for the same idea.

Hiccdown should have support for ids and class names in the tag symbol. Like Hiccup.

[:'div#my-id.my-class.another-class']
# => <div id="my-id" class="my-class another-class"></div>

It should also allow mixing:

[:'div#my-id.my-class.another-class', {id: 'override', class: 'additive'}]
# => <div id="override" class="my-class another-class additive"></div>

In other words, the id from the hash would override the id from the symbol, and the class from the hash would be added to the classes from the symbol.

Hiccdown methods should live in their own, separate classes. How about they are called ‘displays’?

class ProductsDisplay
  def index vc, # …
    vc.some_helper_method
  end
end

Behind the scenes, the Hiccdown gem would need to make the instance variables available to the display class:

display = @display_module.new

view_context.instance_variables.each do |iv|
  display.instance_variable_set(
    iv,
    view_context.instance_variable_get(iv)
  )
end

Then:

class ProductsDisplay
  def index vc, # …
    vc.some_helper_method(@products)
  end
end

Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers as class methods. That way, the problem described in #302 is solved – methods can be referenced unambiguously:

ProductsHelper.index
StoresHelper.index

Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers as instance methods.

Thanks!

It’s just an example. We’re not actually trying to solve the problem of where you want to live. We’re trying to understand how Veritula works.

Another example is physics. The idea ‘Newtonian physics is the true explanation of gravity’ has pending criticisms. For all we know, it’s false. But the idea ‘As an architect, I use Newtonian physics to make calculations because it’s simpler than general relativity and gives nearly identical results on earth’ may have no pending criticisms. So it’s rational for the architect to go with Newtonian physics.

The architect isn’t moving the problem into the future. Finding the true explanation of gravity was never his problem. He’s picking the best tool for the job, today.

It does. But wouldn't that explain away the problem itself? I guess understanding and moving the problem into the future where I might be better suited to solve it is a good idea. So now I am acting on an explanation that solves the problem tentatively.

Right, I was just replying from my phone, which I should not have done, as it is easy to make mistakes like that.