Re: [css3-flexbox] flex-flow: wrap

For consistencies sake I think nowrap-reverse makes sense, especially since
the use-cases highlight a result you cannot accomplish with the other three
alone (regardless of how limited the result is).

On 7 December 2011 22:59, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:55 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:44 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:31 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> > On Wed, Dec 7, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> Also, now it kinda looks odd that no-wrap is the only keyword that
> >> >> doesn't have a -reverse variant.  Should we add one for consistency?
> >> >> I don't see much *use* for it, but if the lack would be confusing, we
> >> >> can fix it simply.
> >> >
> >> > What would nowrap-reverse do differently from nowrap?
> >>
> >> Flip the cross-axis.
> >
> > Is there a use-case for this? If not, it's just confusing. Symmetry is
> not
> > worth adding confusing options that noone will understand.
>
> I don't think it would be particularly confusing, but it would be less
> clear than wrap-reverse.  I was just concerned about whether the
> *lack* of a -reverse option would be more confusing than having it.
> If you're comfortable with not having it, so am I.
>
>
> > To be clear,
> > here's how things would layout on a fixed-width/height flexbox:
> > wrap:
> > |AB|
> > |C |
> > |  |
> > nowrap:
> > |AB|C
> > |  |
> > |  |
> > wrap-reverse:
> > |  |
> > |C |
> > |AB|
> > nowrap-reverse:
> > |  |
> > |  |
> > |AB|C
>
> Yes, this is correct.
>
> ~TJ
>
>


-- 
Cheers,
Toby

http://tosbourn.com
http://twitter.com/tosbourn
http://facebook.com/toby.osbourn
https://plus.google.com/108259413842523229630/posts