Search Ideas

I don’t like the term ‘renderer’ yet. It’s too loaded with meaning, what with Rails already having a render method in controllers and another render method in views…

Then how would you call index from a helper method?

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

1
2
3
4
5

module ProductsRenderer
  def self.index vc, # …
    vc.some_helper_method
  end
end

A benefit of this approach is that, when people start a new Rails app, they may end up putting whatever they’d otherwise put in a helper in a renderer, since renderers have the benefit of having unambiguously resolvable method names.

I don’t think that’s something people would do a lot, but they still easily could: ProductsRenderer.index(self)

Then how would you call this from a helper method?

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

1
2
3
4
5

module ProductsRenderer
  def self.index vc, # …
    vc.some_helper_method
  end
end

That would be mixing class methods an instance methods in Rails helper modules, which typically only contain instance methods. Not idiomatic Rails usage.

If so, there might be a way to bind them to the view_context. Or I could definitely pass the view_context explicitly as the first parameter:

So instead of

1

@helper_module.instance_method(@action_name).bind_call(view_context)

I would do

1

@helper_module.send(@action_name, view_context)

And the parameter list of each Hiccdown method would start accordingly:

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9

module ProductsHelper
  def self.index vc #, …
    vc.some_helper_method
  end

  def some_helper_method
    # …
  end
end

If so, there might be a way to bind them to the view_context. Or I could definitely pass the view_context explicitly as the first parameter:

So instead of

1

@helper_module.instance_method(@action_name).bind_call(view_context)

I would do

1

@helper_module.send(@action_name, view_context)

And the parameter list of each Hiccdown method would start accordingly:

1
2
3
4
5

module ProductsHelper
  def self.index vc #, …
    # …
  end
end

If so, there might be a way to bind them to the view_context. Or I could definitely pass the view_context explicitly as the first parameter.

Does that mean they wouldn’t have access to the view_context? If so, calling helper methods from inside these class methods wouldn’t be possible.

Does that mean they wouldn’t have the view_context? If so, calling helper methods from inside these class methods wouldn’t be possible.

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

1
2

ProductsHelper.index
StoresHelper.index

Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers as instance methods.

That isn’t a good idea because Hiccdown methods often share the same conventional names (index, show, etc), which can and does lead to conflict.

Hiccdown methods should live in Rails helpers.

I’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.

Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.

Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.

Clearly, an embryo without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.

According to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryo moving.”

This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.

Clearly, a fetus without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right?

It’s not considered a fetus until week 9, at which point the nervous system has already begun building.

The correct word to use here is ‘embryo’.

If an already-born person is deadly ill, that doesn’t mean you can kill them. Why should that be any different for an unborn person?

If an already-born person is deadly ill, that doesn’t mean you can kill them.

What happens if only one of two twins is non-viable but abortion would kill both?

I’m pro abortion but I have some pro life in me.

Banning the abortion of a zygote seems ridiculous. So does aborting a seven-month-old fetus.

Why not go with: you can abort until the nervous system develops.

Clearly, a fetus without a nervous system can’t be sentient and thus can’t be a person, right? And as long as it’s not a person, it doesn’t have any rights.

According to https://www.neurosciencefoundation.org/post/brain-development-in-fetus, “an embryo’s brain and nervous system begin to develop at around the 6-week mark.” And: “At as early as 8 weeks (about 2 months), you can see physical evidence of the brain working (the electric impulses) as ultrasounds show the embryo moving.”

This idea is for viable pregnancies only. Other considerations may apply for non-viable ones.

I have addressed this issue separately – it’s a separate idea. #274

For non-viable pregnancies, where a doctor reasonably predicts that the baby will die during pregnancy or shortly after, abortions should be allowed throughout the entire pregnancy to avoid unnecessary suffering for parents and child.

This take does not address the issue of non-viable pregnancies.

Imagine being pregnant and looking forward to becoming a parent. However, during a routine diagnostic test, your doctor tells you your pregnancy isn’t viable; at birth, your baby will likely not survive long outside the womb. Because you live in a state like Texas that has recently banned abortion with few exceptions, you now need to carry this pregnancy to term, carrying the grief of a non-viable fetus and likely endangering your own life in the process.