I’m wondering about this @include syntax, too. What’s the point about it?
2010/3/8 Richard Aday <richard.a...@gmail.com> > Awesome I'm in favor of the deprecation as well. > > One issue though. I noticed from Chris' gist that in SCSS we will be > using @include to call mixins. What's the point? It feels more > verbose and is basically a waste of characters. Why not keep the plus > sign for SCSS as well? > > Also will 3.0 allow nested level imports? > > On Sunday, March 7, 2010, Alex Wallace <alexmlwall...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I would also prefer $ over ! if for no other reason than !important could > potentially be confused. I'd consider the ! somewhat reserved in css, > whereas $ is accepted for variables. > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Mar 7, 2010, at 3:45 PM, Chris Eppstein <ch...@eppsteins.net> wrote: > > > > Here's the blueprint grid, re-written using scss and taking advantage of > all the language features that are planned in sass3: > > https://gist.github.com/13b0e09fc6f29c9dffd3 > > > > > > You can compare this to the current version: > > > > > http://github.com/chriseppstein/compass/blob/master/frameworks/blueprint/stylesheets/blueprint/_grid.sass > > > > Chris > > On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 4:10 AM, Aaron Russell <aaron...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I'm all for this too. $ makes much more sense than !. Although to be > > honest I'm much more excited about the prospect of removing the need > > for =. > > > > I've been using the SCSS syntax a bit (which is great by the way - a > > massive step in the right direction), but I do get irked by having to > > format styles like: > > > > div {border = 1px "solid" !green;} > > > > If I'll soon be able to do: > > > > div {border: 1px solid $green;} > > > > ..then my major complain of SASS/SCSS will be dealt with. :) > > > > > > > > On Mar 7, 8:42 am, hunkybill <hunkyb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am all for this. $ is common in not only PHP stew but also > >> Javascript. ! is NOT!! > >> > >> Thanks > >> > >> On Mar 7, 12:43 am, Chris Eppstein <ch...@eppsteins.net> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > Let's assume for a second that it didn't create parsing ambiguities. > >> > >> > Would you really prefer: > >> > >> > div > >> > border: width solid blue > >> > >> > over: > >> > >> > div > >> > border: $width solid blue > >> > >> > I think the latter is much more clear from a reader's perspective. > >> > >> > And without the prefix we could also do horrible things like this: > >> > >> > solid = dashed; > >> > blue = #f00; > >> > width = 1px; > >> > div > >> > border: width solid blue > >> > >> > which would emit: > >> > >> > div{ border: 1px dashed red; } > >> > >> > In a programming language, you're working with variables all the time. > They > >> > are the most common thing you work with and so it makes sense that > you'd > >> > optimize the syntax around them, but in sass you're building styles > first > >> > and variables are secondary -- as such, I feel quite strongly they > should be > >> > easily identifiable as special. > >> > >> > Anyways, Nathan has already finished coding all this up and it's on > the scss > >> > branch. Thanks to everyone for your input. The use of ! as a variable > prefix > >> > will be deprecated in sass 3. > >> > >> > chris > >> > >> > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Michael Narciso <narke...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > > I'd prefer no prefix but would be content with $. > >> > >> > > Norman Clarke wrote: > >> > >> > > I strongly agree that $ will be better than !. As far as > deprecations go, > >> > > perhaps you could go with first a warning for one release cycle, and > then > >> > > leave it as a non-default configuration option for another release > cycle > >> > > before eliminating it entirely. > >> > >> > > On Mar 6, 2010 9:13 PM, "Tobias Adam" <tow...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > >> > > I always thought that the "!" prefix tends to be a bit ambiguous > >> > > because of its common notion of a logical NOT. > >> > > I mean that re > > > > > > > > -- > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Haml" group. > > To post to this group, send email to h...@googlegroups.com. > > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > haml+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <haml%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > > > > -- > -Richard Aday > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Haml" group. > To post to this group, send email to h...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > haml+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com <haml%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Haml" group. To post to this group, send email to h...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to haml+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
