I think you're right about the undefined functions evaluating to CSS.  
That seems like a cool way to treat it. Also, would it be desirable  
to use the quoted form to explicitly coerce something into CSS?

Is there a particular reason not to allow functions as an attribute?  
I certainly prefer specifying colors as constants in a block at the  
top of my Sass, but a CSS person might expect that functions would be  
available in that context.

Steve

On Jun 14, 2007, at 6:32 PM, Nathan Weizenbaum wrote:

>
> Functions would definitely only appear in SassScript (the stuff you  
> use
> to define constants) so they don't conflict with other (future) CSS  
> stuff.
>
> As for conflicts with url and such-like, I could see two ways of
> handling this. First, we could just require that people wrap those  
> with
> quotes:
>
> !background_image= "url(/images/foo.png)"
>
> Or we could make undefined functions evaluate to literal CSS, which
> would allow
>
> !background_image= url(/images/foo.png)
>
> to work. I'm liking the latter.
>
> - Nathan
>
> s.ross wrote:
>> This very interesting snippet re-raises the question of how you will
>> recognize function-like thingies. They appear to be useful in two
>> contexts:
>>
>> - right-hand-side of a constant definition
>> - attribute
>>
>> But how do you differentiate between a func and a css construct like
>> url() without compromising the clean readability of Sass?
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>>
>>
>> On Jun 14, 2007, at 11:51 AM, weepy wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> it would be useful to be able to do
>>>
>>> #myform
>>> background: hsl(3,4,255)
>>>
>>> as well
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jun 14, 6:20 pm, "s.ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>> Nathan--
>>>>
>>>> Were you anticipating some syntax like:
>>>>
>>>> !background-color=hsl(3,3,25)
>>>>
>>>> This would fit nicely into some kind of plugin architecture where a
>>>> function is recognized by the presence of some simple token like  
>>>> open
>>>> and close parentheses. However, there is one potential conflict  
>>>> I can
>>>> see: Constants like:
>>>>
>>>> !background-image=url(/images/foo.png)
>>>>
>>>> would conflict. Have you done any thinking about how the syntax  
>>>> might
>>>> look?
>>>>
>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 13, 2007, at 7:30 PM, Nathan Weizenbaum wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> At the moment, SassScript doesn't have any support for function- 
>>>>> like
>>>>> things, and I don't want to add anything major before 1.7. That is
>>>>> something I'd definitely consider adding for 2.0, though.
>>>>
>>>>> - Nathan
>>>>
>>>>> rebo wrote:
>>>>>> Nice one steve , good work.
>>>>
>>>>>> On Jun 13, 7:11 pm, "s.ross" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> I put a pastie out that might help:
>>>>
>>>>>>> http://pastie.caboo.se/70169
>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve
>>>>
>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 2007, at 8:49 AM, rebo wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> As an example could have
>>>>
>>>>>>>> !bgcol = rhsl(23,50,50) ( a green say)
>>>>
>>>>>>>> .lightbg = !bgcol + rhsl(0,0,20) ( for light green)
>>>>>>>> .darkbg = !bgcol - rhsl(0,0,20) (for dark green)
>>>>
>>>>>>>> The advantage is now that i can define a websites colour  
>>>>>>>> scheme by
>>>>>>>> just changing one colour. One could go further and define rcomp
>>>>>>>> () or
>>>>>>>> other colour functions to calculate a complementary colour for
>>>>>>>> instance.
>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Jun 13, 4:33 pm, rebo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Just wondering if you could add a SASS command so that colours
>>>>>>>>> can be
>>>>>>>>> defined in HSL (hue,saturation, lightness) format, which  
>>>>>>>>> then gets
>>>>>>>>> converted to rgb for the css (so it works in all browsers).  
>>>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>>>> would be useful so that one could define a colour with a  
>>>>>>>>> range of
>>>>>>>>> lightness's using the colour arithmetic in SASS.
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>
>>>>>>> Steve Ross
>>>>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]://www.calicowebdev.com
>>>>>>> <http://www.calicowebdev.com>
>>>>
>>>> Steve Ross
>>>> [EMAIL PROTECTED]://www.calicowebdev.com
>>>> <http://www.calicowebdev.com>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Steve Ross
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> http://www.calicowebdev.com
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>
>
> >

Steve Ross
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.calicowebdev.com



--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to