I think that would be great. To be fully truthful, I tried that to begin with. Only after I tried what I am currently proposing (to see if it worked or not out of curiosity) did I come to prefer that to no parentheses.
On Oct 9, 7:58 pm, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would allowing mixin includes sans parentheses work for you? I'd be much > happier to do that than to allow the parentheses to separate from the name. > > Scott Fleckenstein wrote: > > The argument for it is better aesthetics. By looking at just the set > > of values on a given set of properties I can tell right away whether > > it is a literal value, mixin include, or calculated value. > > > Personally (so take this with a grain of salt) I don't buy the > > convention argument. I don't conceptualize Sass as if it was a > > program I'm writing: there are executable statements, sure, but they > > are all pretty much independent. As such, relying on convention from > > programming language at the expense of the flexibility of Sass seems a > > poor choice. For example, it seems like the you took inspiration > > from !important when you incorporated constants, but that of course > > clashes with the established convention of prefix ! being a negation > > operator. > > > But of course, you may have had these discussion before, so I > > understand if you're not feeling it. > > > Eric, I personally don't find your pastie matching with my style; It's > > an improvement, but it not good enough. I consider the parentheses as > > part of the argument list. But of course, I may be weird :) > > > Oh well, such is the beauty of OSS; I'll just maintain code with my > > own personal flavors. You guys have done a great job with the code, > > it's very easy to understand and hack on. Kudos. > > > Thanks, > > Scott > > > On Oct 9, 4:56 pm, "Chris Eppstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> I actually agree, but I assumed it was what you wanted based on my reading > >> of the code. > >> For the use case Scott mentioned, I think he can do the following and be > >> almost as happy:http://pastie.textmate.org/private/n6ukjex5crqxoc3wtnyhq > > >> Of course, I continue to be a fan of making the parentheses optional ;-) > > >> Chris > > >> On Thu, Oct 9, 2008 at 4:16 PM, Nathan Weizenbaum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >> wrote: > > >>> I'm not sure we want to allow this. The convention for all programming > >>> languages and existing Sass code is not having whitespace between a > >>> function name and its arguments, so since Sass takes an opinionated > >>> stance on style, unless there's a convincing use case for it I'd rather > >>> it be illegal. > > >>> Chris Eppstein wrote: > > >>>> It's a bug fix, space was always allowed by the parsing regex. Nathan, > >>>> I've applied this patch to the master branch, you can pull from me to > >>>> apply this change. > > >>>> chris > > >>>> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Scott Fleckenstein > >>>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: > > >>>> Hi All, > > >>>> So, i've been really enjoying Sass, and one thing I find myself doing > >>>> is lining up the indentation of the property values, so you get > > >>> things > > >>>> like the following: > >>>> http://pastie.textmate.org/private/o6k301znsocxgxnta5ikjw > > >>>> I find that form very easy on the eyes, but unfortunately, putting > >>>> whitespace between the mixin name and the argument list throws an > >>>> exception. The patch is incredibly simple, and it would be great to > >>>> get to get it included. > > >>>> the patch: http://pastie.textmate.org/private/al1u0yf5hhahcbvqlz9uw > > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> Scott > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
