- From: Sylvain Galineau <sylvaing@microsoft.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 May 2012 16:50:42 +0000
- To: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Christoph Päper <christoph.paeper@crissov.de>
- CC: www-style list <www-style@w3.org>
[Tab Atkins Jr.:] > > On Thu, May 24, 2012 at 7:54 AM, Christoph Päper > <christoph.paeper@crissov.de> wrote: > > Christoph Päper: > >> > >> I’m still a fan of using variable names verbatim, i.e. no prefix, no > function notation, no nothing: > [snip proposal] > > I don't see what the benefit to the author is of making variables be > simple keywords. > > This would make it hard to spot variables in use, as they look just like > every other keyword. It would make it confusing to combine with other > keywords. It introduces the need for precedence rules which mean that > *sometimes* an ident is a keyword and other times its a variable. While many programming languages do not decorate variable names that is imo largely because the vast majority of their variables are user-defined i.e. there is no risk confusion. In fact, when such languages do define some variables - e.g. to hold certain pre-defined constants or environment parameters - they often use a naming convention meant to distinguish them from regular variables (i.e. not just because they might be constants). So I strongly agree: CSS is loaded with keyword values that would be indistinguishable from user variables and it would be very helpful to be able to spot and search for user-defined values from those built in CSS. > > This suggestion has a lot of bad usability problems, and the benefit is > that you can omit a single character (the $ prefix). This seems pretty > easy to reject. > Agree. >
Received on Thursday, 24 May 2012 16:51:28 UTC