W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2013

Re: [css-grid] proposal for repeat to take a third argument for jointure

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2013 17:05:28 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDfA5yEQAOSq6cdmf=WqFUeG8y3fHnNBftOo+H5ctVh5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com>
Cc: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>, fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>, Rossen Atanassov <Rossen.Atanassov@microsoft.com>
On Mon, Dec 16, 2013 at 3:18 PM, François REMY
<francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote:
> TLDR: why not “repeat(<int>,  (col-start) 100px (col-end),  10px)” ==> “(col-start) 100px (col-end)  10px ... 10px  (col-start) 100px (col-end)”?
>
> Reasoning: otherwise, if we want to replicate this behavior, we have to write “(col-start) 100px (col-end) repeat(<int-1>, 10px (col-start) 100px (col-end))” which is counter-intuitive (and I remember we thought it was annoying to have to define “function(<length> [, <length>]*)” instead of “function([<length>]{,}+)” and this seems like a similar issue here).
>
> Thoughts?

Can you give some actual examples of where you'd want something like this?

Also, it's very unclear to me why you chose the precise definition you
did.  Wouldn't it be (int - 2) in the expanded version?  Can you
explain your reasoning?

Also, what's "jointure"?  Wikipedia's definition
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jointure> doesn't seem relevant.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2013 01:06:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:39:17 UTC