W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > September 2007

Re: [CSSWG] Resolutions Beijing F2F 2007-09-11

From: Pascal Germroth <pascal@germroth.name>
Date: Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:25:27 +0200
Message-ID: <46EBF967.4000203@germroth.name>
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "Philip Taylor (Webmaster)" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>, www-style@w3.org

Hello,

>> fantasai wrote:
>>>     - Use 'repeat(...)' for repetition patterns.
>>
>> Is this, like URL, going to disallow LWSP between
>> "repeat" and "(" ?  If so, may I ask that this
>> be re-considered ?  The prohibition of LWSP at
>> a point where some would naturally insert it
>> is a major obstacle to first-time-error-free
>> coding of CSS.
> 
> 'repeat(...)' will follow the same syntax as other
> functional notation in CSS. Note that if not for the
> opening parentheses the first part would be tokenized
> as a keyword.
> 
> I wouldn't consider it "natural" to insert whitespace
> between a function and its opening parentheses. Most
> coding styles I've seen don't do that.

It's the standard behaviour of GNU indent, for example. Most C code
seems to be written in that way.
Though I don't know how the parser works, wouldn't it be better to lex
the function name as some generic name that could be a keyword or
identifier and use lookahead in the parser making <ident> <(> the start
of a function and just <ident> a keyword (if it matches one)?


-- 
Pascal Germroth
Received on Saturday, 15 September 2007 15:27:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:52 GMT