i don’t see anything wrong really with @condition or @otherwise. enough of css is weirdly verbose as it is that I don’t think a little more is a big deal. besides, don’t we have completing text editors now?
I’m reminded of javascript having to use Array.prototype.flat instead of flatten. With that in mind, while I like stability quite a bit (one of the reasons I like Clojure), I don’t like it when bad community decisions can ruin things for everyone else.
CSS already has conditionals, without keyword. It works fine. It sounds like they’re trying to solve the wrong problem. They actually want pattern matching, don’t they? It would make a lot more sense for a declarative language either ways.
I propose a hard to remember series of one character flags, -n for “not-not” which tests if the variable is not, not set; -p for “probably” to test if something is more than 50%; -z for “does z-index work?” (answer is always no); and so on.
I assume it will take some time before the new CSS standard is both finalized and implemented. Isn’t there time for the SASS-people (both devs and users) to create some workaround?
Yes that means work for them. But on the other hand, that is what you get if you start to extent a language that isn’t yours and that is out of your control. Let’s try this with any other language. I create some new Rust “keyword” and a macro or pre-processor that does something magical with it. And then the Rust developers add the same keyword to the official specification. Do I have any right to complain about that?
i don’t see anything wrong really with
@conditionor@otherwise. enough of css is weirdly verbose as it is that I don’t think a little more is a big deal. besides, don’t we have completing text editors now?I’m reminded of javascript having to use Array.prototype.flat instead of flatten. With that in mind, while I like stability quite a bit (one of the reasons I like Clojure), I don’t like it when bad community decisions can ruin things for everyone else.
CSS already has conditionals, without keyword. It works fine. It sounds like they’re trying to solve the wrong problem. They actually want pattern matching, don’t they? It would make a lot more sense for a declarative language either ways.
Does CSSWG accept comments? Where?
@test, to appeal to the broad userbase of Bourne Shell users looking to learn CSS.I propose a hard to remember series of one character flags, -n for “not-not” which tests if the variable is not, not set; -p for “probably” to test if something is more than 50%; -z for “does z-index work?” (answer is always no); and so on.
I assume it will take some time before the new CSS standard is both finalized and implemented. Isn’t there time for the SASS-people (both devs and users) to create some workaround?
Yes that means work for them. But on the other hand, that is what you get if you start to extent a language that isn’t yours and that is out of your control. Let’s try this with any other language. I create some new Rust “keyword” and a macro or pre-processor that does something magical with it. And then the Rust developers add the same keyword to the official specification. Do I have any right to complain about that?