Re: [csswg-drafts] [css-mixins-1] Auto-wrap mixin body in `@result` if omitted? (#13524)

> Miriam's interview with Chris Coyier, where as Miriam showed off the basic syntax, Chris literally said something like "oh like the 'result' property, makes sense".

It would help to link to this interview (a time offset to this part would also be appreciated).
From your comment, "result property" sounds like @mirisuzanne was presenting functions, and I completely agree that `result` makes sense there!

> Remember, also, that we have a resolution to introduce a different rule that has the "unscoped"/"simple" behavior, where there's no locals, no hygiene, no scoping, and thus no need for an @result. I think a lot of those "small" Mixins would be perfectly fine just using that rule instead.

Would these mixins support nested rules and other `@apply` rules, or is that the simpler form we discussed where they're basically shorthands and only support declarations?
If the former, I agree that would be fine (and possibly even the best of both worlds), but we should design them together, not leave this as a TODO. It's very hard to change authors' mental model once they internalize that they need to use a `@result {}` rule all over the place.

-- 
GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/13524#issuecomment-3998486588 using your GitHub account


-- 
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config

Received on Wednesday, 4 March 2026 16:01:19 UTC