1. 22
  1. 3

    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?

    1. 2

      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.

      1. 2

        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.

        @case {
            @supports(display: grid) and @media(min-width: 33em) {
                …
            }
            @default {
                …
            }
        }
        

        Does CSSWG accept comments? Where?

        1. 2

          @test, to appeal to the broad userbase of Bourne Shell users looking to learn CSS.

          1. 1

            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.

          2. 1

            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?