Fix method name clash about govuk-components HOT 5 CLOSED

As I commented in #64, I've been swayed and I think that wrap_slot probably isn't worth it. I'm inclined to remove it, it's a bit nicer in some circumstances but it could be the tip of the iceberg of name clashes and confusion.

I still think that the auto-generated helpers are nice though, I'd be reluctant to remove them, but all that extra complexity to change from accordion.slot(:item, **stuff) to accordion.item(**stuff) no longer feels worth it! Thoughts welcome.

from govuk-components.

Ah, I didn't see the comments about the pitfalls of relying on arity in this case.

This is a tough one. add_ is good, although it's purpose isn't as clear when it comes to a non-collection slot ... first call makes sense, but what about subsequent calls? There's an interesting comment in that issue about how collections should behave more like an array. Would it make sense to have different semantics based on whether it's a collection or not?

Maybe it would make sense to let this be dealt-with upstream. 😛

from govuk-components.

I think waiting for the upstream API to settle is definitely a good call. As this is causing you some problems at the moment I'm going to switch over to #add_thing format for the moment but leave this issue open so it can be properly addressed.

I hadn't really taken collections into account so when testing with normal slots no singular method existed. 🤦‍♂️

from govuk-components.

Ya, I agree. I was going to say the same thing last night but decided to sleep on it ... but I've not been swayed. Let's wait and see what happens upstream, I completely agree it would be nicer to tidy it up.

from govuk-components.

This was fixed (temporarily, at least) by #64

from govuk-components.