Why don't you define the background property after you include the mixin, so the mixin's definition will be overridden?
On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 9:06 PM, Chris G <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, quick q, > > I'm using a mixin that defines many properties, including a background > image. > > That background image is overriding a more desirable background > definition in an earlier/higher css rule. > > I'd like to use everything from the mixin but that background > property. > > Is something like an "undefine: background" possible, so that a lower- > priority background property can come through? Or any available > technique. > > Barring that, am going to parameterize the mixin with a default > variable for background. > > Great thanks, > > Chris > > -- > 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.
