> > Regarding the use of $ as a variable indicator, I'm sorry that you do not > like this change, but it is one that is *important* to make and make > consistent across the syntaxes.
I see what you did there.... :brad On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 5:17 PM, Chris Eppstein <[email protected]> wrote: > I think you've misunderstood the direction of this project even though I > think we've been quite clear. The whitespace aware syntax is not going away. > > (dramatic pause) > > In Sass 3, Nathan has made the core of what Sass is a lot more technically > robust. This has allowed us to get rid of a number of syntactic annoyances > like the need to use = or #{} in the most common cases to use SassScript. > > On top of this core, there are three parsers, one for the indentation based > syntax, another for the css superset syntax called scss, and one for parsing > css3. The way these parsers work is by translating your document into a > syntax agnostic representation called an AST, which can then be converted to > css, sass, or scss. This is also what enables the two syntaxes to completely > interoperate across imports. > > You do not have to use SCSS to write your stylesheets and again, we have no > intention of deprecating the indentation based syntax. > > (dramatic pause) > > Regarding the use of $ as a variable indicator, I'm sorry that you do not > like this change, but it is one that is important to make and make > consistent across the syntaxes. The reason for this is quite simple: ! has a > CSS meaning already. It is a statement modifier. As such, that syntax is now > used to modify variable assignments: $foo: 2px !default, instead of the more > ruby-esque $foo ||= 2px. To goal of such changes is to lower the cognitive > distance between sass/scss and css -- especially for designers. > > Now, regarding compass, I have decided to change the syntax of the files in > compass because I want as many people to read and understand them as > possible. You can import them into your project's sass files by simply > removing the ".sass" from the end of your imports (note: I've also converted > underscores to dashes in the import names as indicated by the deprecation > warnings in rc2). SCSS will also be the default syntax for new compass > projects, but a simple config setting and/or command line switch puts you > right back into Sass-land. > > Now, regarding your statement that this is "just for adoption". Make no > mistake: that is the goal. I don't see why we would lose you as a user given > what I've said above, and we'll do what we can to avoid that, but if it > happens, it happens -- I can't make you use our code or upgrade. But allow > me to explain what is in it for you by growing the Sass community: There is > strength in numbers. We can share our code with each other, have an easier > time hiring, and an easier time convincing our management to let us use this > technology. We will learn and develop best practices by collaborating with > each other. So yes, I want to increase adoption because the power of sass is > much less about how it looks and a lot more about how the features it > provides changes the way we approach building design. > > Chris > > On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 2:09 PM, NathanD <[email protected]>wrote: > >> I'm not sure where to post this. Ever since learning that SASS is >> going to be SCSS I've become a little distraught. I've been >> absolutely loving SASS as a language. It's visually easy to navigate >> and see how CSS cascades. It's actually a lot of *fun*, I feel like >> I'm programming Python instead of Perl/PHP. This is a good thing. >> >> With SCSS, I feel like SASS taking a step backward and getting into >> Perl territory. CSS is already dense enough. I don't really need >> curly-braces, dollar marks or semi-colons. They're just visual cruft >> that (seem to) serve no purpose but to ease adoption by people who are >> already familiar with CSS. The trade-off doesn't seem like it's worth >> it. >> >> I'm wondering if the already-wonderful HAML is going to take the same >> steps and get into using angle brackets and 'dumb it down' so that >> people who know HTML will be more at home with it. >> >> Is all this just for greater adoption? Or is there a deeper purpose? >> If it's just adoption, you've lost me. I use [compass] every day to >> style documents at work. If SCSS becomes the default to compile >> against, I'll just not upgrade. It's just not worth it to me. >> >> Thanks. >> >> -- >> 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. > -- Bradley Grzesiak co-founder, bendyworks llc http://bendyworks.com/ -- 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.
