Currently, the non-! variable syntax overlaps with the plain-string
syntax. If we do deprecate that syntax, then once we actually remove it
(post-2.2) we may be able to remove the ! syntax. But that's a
discussion for the future.
Also, I'd like to make it clear that it wouldn't be the entire = syntax
that would be deprecated. You could still do
background-image = !my_image_url
and depending on whether or not we keep in the default function behavior
of working like a string,
background-image = url(!my_image_name)
It's only stuff like
border = 1px solid !border_color
that would have to change to
border: 1px solid #{!border_color}
- Nathan
Chris Eppstein wrote:
> I had a similar thought. So far I haven't been able to think of a good
> reason to require the ! in that context except consistency. I was
> reading the w3c proposal for css variables today that is already
> implemented in Webkit. They have the following syntax:
>
> @variables {
> my_image_name: url("/images/bg.png");
> }
>
> and you can reference a variable using a var() function like so:
>
> background-image: var(my_image_name)
>
> I think there's certainly an opportunity for us to do better than that!
>
> Personally, I've never liked the !var syntax because of the overlap
> with the rule modifier !important and I think that too much
> punctuation scares off newbies.
>
> That said, I think this is orthogonal to the issue at hand.
>
> chris
>
> On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 4:35 PM, railsjedi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
>
>
> I thinks fine to require using the #{} for evaluating variables as I
> think its a great Ruby idiom to reuse.
>
> What if after Sass uses the ! operator to set variables, it allowed
> the #{} without the ! to evaluate them?
>
> For example:
> !my_image_name = "/images/bg.png"
> div
> background-image: url(#{my_image_name})
>
>
>
> On Nov 24, 4:19 pm, Chris Eppstein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > Nathan and I chatted for a while about this issue. We agree that
> > there's an awkward difference here between evaluated and
> non-evaluated
> > styles but the fix is not necessarily straightforward.
> >
> > Here's the rub. In theory, there's no way for the Sass parser to be
> > 100% certain whether you're referring to a resource or wanting
> > SassScript evaluation. Consider the following example:
> >
> > div
> > background-image = url(2-1)
> >
> > In theory this could be pointing to a resource named "2-1" in
> the same
> > directory as the compiled stylesheet, but then so could "1" -- the
> > result of performing an evaluation. Certainly this is just a corner
> > case. What are the chances that you're referring to a resource
> in the
> > same directory that happens to be named the same as a legal
> SassScript
> > expression? But the fact that it exists is extremely worrisome
> from a
> > language design perspective.
> >
> > The leading option right now to address this issue is to do away
> with
> > evaluation mode (=) altogether and use interpolation(#{}) to access
> > SassScript in a style value. You can use Sass this way right now, so
> > we'd simply deprecate evaluation mode for the next release. This
> means
> > that if you wanted to point to a resource named "1" using the code
> > above you'd have to express it like so:
> >
> > div
> > background-image: url(#{2-1})
> >
> > But it also means that
> > div
> > background-image= url(!my_image_name)
> >
> > would have to become:
> > div
> > background-image: url(#{!my_image_name})
> >
> > Any feedback or other ideas are welcome.
> >
> > Chris
> >
> > On Nov 24, 8:55 am, "Chris Eppstein" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> >
> > > Well I made a changeset that makes the url function escaped,
> but now that I
> > > think about it, it's not the right approach because it precludes
> > > url(!my_file_name). I think maybe you're just going to have to
> add quotes
> > > when in evaluation mode (=).
> >
> > > Nathan, do you think there's a bug here?
> >
> > > for reference, here's the change I made. I'll be dumping it
> shortly --
> > > bummer cuz it was pretty clean code.
> >
> >
> >http://github.com/chriseppstein/haml/commit/fa9092798194384df0caaed89...
> >
> > > On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 7:32 AM, Chris Eppstein
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>>wrote:
> >
> > > > I'll look into this right away. As a work-around for now you
> can place
> > > > your image name in quotes.
> >
> > > > chris
> >
> > > > On Nov 24, 3:43 am, jazen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote:
> > > > > Hello,
> >
> > > > > i'm using Edge Rails, Ruby 1.8.6 and (Edge) Haml and ran
> into the
> > > > > following issues:
> >
> > > > > Sass::SyntaxError: Undefined operation "-960 minus yellow"
> > > > > ...
> > > > > background = !highlight_color url(../images/bg-box-bottom-960-
> > > > > yellow.png) no-repeat 0 bottom
> >
> > > > > Sass::SyntaxError: Expected expression, was and token
> > > > > ...
> > > > > background = transparent
> url(../images/repl-de-logo-and-slogan.png) no-
> > > > > repeat 11px 0
> >
> > > > > and Sass evaluates color aliases into their codes, e.g.:
> >
> > > > > background-image = url(../images/bg-arrow-red-down.gif)
> > > > > becomes
> > > > > background-image = url(../images/bg-arrow-#ff0000-down.gif)
> > > > > (Firebug revealed this)
> >
> > > > > /jazen
> >
> >
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
