- From: andruud via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2025 13:46:12 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> I would be curious to learn which anticipated edge cases led to the fallbacks being considered as a part of the cycle even when not used: were there actual circularity cases that could happen, and we did not know how to handle (and know what to do now)? I wasn't involved then, but I _suspect_ it was done that way to make it possible to handle cycles without doing any evaluation? But things have gotten significantly more complicated (dynamic) since then. For example, `--x:var(--unknown, revert-layer)` may or may not be a cycle depending on what `revert-layer` reverts to. > And if we change this behavior: what is the benefit of that change, which use cases does it unlock then? More or less the same as `if()`: it allows `var(--commonly-present-but-not-always, --rare-and-expensive())` without _always_ evaluating `--rare-and-expensive()`. -- GitHub Notification of comment by andruud Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/11500#issuecomment-2663186452 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Monday, 17 February 2025 13:46:13 UTC