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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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
<[email protected]> 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" <[email protected]> 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 reading
>
> > > =column-base(!last = false)
> > > +float-left
> > > @if !last
> > > +last
>
> > > reads to a Java/Ruby/JavaScript/C/… programmer as "IF NOT LAST
" which
> > > is exactly the opposite of its intended meaning.
>
> > > On the contraty, I think using a "$" prefix positively reminds
> > > programmers of other languages’ syntax, even if it’s PHP ;-)
> > > So I would prefer the method of deprecating the "!" notation and
> > > moving towards the "$" syntax.
>
> > > Greetings,
> > > Tobi
>
> > > On Mar 7, 12:43 am, Nathan Weizenbaum <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > We were originally planning to go...
> > > > On Sat, Mar 6, 2010 at 3:38 PM, Gabriel Sobrinho <
> > > [email protected]
>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > I think variables should not contain a prefix (like in
plain ruby). $
> > > looks
> > > > >...
> > > > >> [email protected]<haml
%[email protected]><
> > > haml%[email protected]<haml
%[email protected]>
> > > >.
>
> > > > >> For more options, visit this group at
> > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
>
> > > > > --
> > > >...
> > > > > [email protected]<haml
%[email protected]><
> > > haml%[email protected]<haml
%[email protected]>
> > > >.
>
> > > > > For more options, visit this group at
> > > > >http://groups.google.com/group/haml?hl=en.
>
> > > --
> > > You rec...
>
> > > --
> > > 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.
>
> > > --
> > > 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] <haml
%[email protected]>.
> > > 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 [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
.
--
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
.
--
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.
