On 3 Apr 2008, at 18:50, Thomas Reynolds wrote:
> > Just wanted to chime on the usefulness of css mixins and to ask for > the scope of this feature to be expanded. I agree on the usefulness, and am in complete accord with your analysis of the other methods available of acheiving the same end. I find adding extra classes within the html very disturbing. > Now, it looks to me that even with this patch that this still wouldn't > work. It seems to operate on only one node of css rules, not a tree. > So I would ask that the - prefixed selector could contain a whole tree > of CSS beneath it that would also be included. I was about to exclaim that of course! the mixin can contain anything you want! but then I saw the &:after block in your example code and have no idea if that kind of structure will work. I'll add it to the tests and see. The mixin definition is completely node agnostic so, if Nathan says that's the only thing that matters (and he should know), then I'm pretty confident it will work. Watch this space, version 3 is almost ready and will hopefully meet with Nathan's approval this time... Best, g --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
