I'm a little worried about the ambiguity here. "300px last" is valid SassScript, evaluating as the string "300px last". That makes this syntax much trickier to parse and inherently ambiguous. It's not a horrible ambiguity, but it's there. Mainly for that reason, I think I prefer the current syntax.
Chris Eppstein wrote: > Yes, I agree this is nicer. Nathan ought to weigh in though... he's > the man in charge. I could put together a changeset if he's too busy > but wants the change. > > chris > > On Aug 25, 12:53 am, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> You needn't use my fork anymore. All my changes are in nex3's master >>> branch at this time. >>> >> Wow, very good news! >> >> >>> Re: the syntax of mixin arguments. I think the idea of making them >>> more CSS-like is a good one. How would you handle multiple arguments? >>> Your examples only show a single argument. Would they be space >>> delimited instead of comma delimited like CSS? >>> >> First I thought everything should be more ruby-like syntax in haml/ >> sass, but nowadays I would prefer more close to CSS spirit, because >> many people might not be ruby programmers and don't care so much about >> ruby syntax. For example I hated variable starting with "!" (why not >> with "@"), but now it's ok cos its more close to CSS spirit. >> >> So from user perspective (still not knowing Sass engine much) I would >> be happy with syntax similar to CSS (without commas): >> >> .content >> +column: 600px >> .sidebar >> +column: 300px last >> >> Cheers, >> Priit >> > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
