One of the main goals of SCSS is to use existing CSS syntax wherever possible, rather than introducing new syntactic elements. This means that, although the =/+ mixin syntax is more concise, we prefer the CSS-based directive syntax. If you're looking for concise rather than CSS-y, the indented syntax will continue to be available.
On Sun, Mar 7, 2010 at 3:37 PM, Tobias Adam <[email protected]> wrote: > I’m wondering about this @include syntax, too. What’s the point about it? > > 2010/3/8 Richard Aday <[email protected]> > > Awesome I'm in favor of the deprecation as well. >> >> One issue though. I noticed from Chris' gist that in SCSS we will be >> using @include to call mixins. What's the point? It feels more >> verbose and is basically a waste of characters. Why not keep the plus >> sign for SCSS as well? >> >> Also will 3.0 allow nested level imports? >> >> On Sunday, March 7, 2010, Alex Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: >> > 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 re >> > >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> > >> >> -- >> -Richard Aday >> >> -- >> 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] <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.
