Re: [css3-*] Review of functional syntax in CSS

But this will also increase the style sheet size. And I doubt that lazy developers want to write all these new terms. And most developers are lazy at some point with the excuse of efficiency :)

Dirk

On Jan 20, 2012, at 12:34 PM, Brian Manthos wrote:

>> You're pre-assuming a definition of "argument" that, I suspect, is
>> actually inconsistent.
> 
> I would argue that that is the root issue.
> 
> Perhaps the solution is to add wrapping parens, or subfunction usage.....
> 
> Instead of
> 	Foo(1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6)
> 	Foo(1 2 3 4 5 6)
> 	Foo(1 2, 3 4, 5 6)
> Use
> 	Foo(bar(1 2) bar(3 4) bar(5 6))
> 	Foo(bar(1 2), bar(3 4), bar(5 6))
> 	Foo(bar(1, 2), bar(3, 4), bar(5, 6))
> 
> Notice that the commas become irrelevant and you can now also do
> 	Foo(bar(1) bar(3) bar(5))
> and have it be treated the same as repeating
> 	Foo(bar(1 1) bar(3 3) bar(5 5))
> Or as zeros
> 	Foo(bar(1 0) bar(3 0) bar(5 0))
> Or whatever
> 	Foo(bar(1 1) bar(3 9) bar(5 25))
> 
> Example 1
> 	Radial-gradient(position(1px) size(3px) shape(5px), red, blue)
> 	Radial-gradient(position(1px center) size(3px 3px) shape(5px 5px), red, blue)
> 
> - Missing parameter in position are treated as they are for background-position.
> - Missing parameter in size and shape are treated as symmetric.
> 
> Example 2
> 	Matrix(row(1) row(3))
> 	Matrix(row(1) row(3) row(0))
> 	Matrix(row(1 0) row(3 0) row(0 0))
> 	Matrix(row(1 0 0) row(3 0 0) row(0 0 0))
> - Omitted values in rows are equivalent to specifying zero.
> - Omitted rows are equivalent to a row of zeros.
> 
> 
> Seems to solve the ambiguity and allow for commas or spaces as per author whim.

Received on Friday, 20 January 2012 20:42:24 UTC