On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 10:57 AM, Chris Eppstein <chris@eppsteins.net> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 3, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Mark Volkmann <r.mark.volkmann@gmail.com>wrote: > >> I don't see how referring to them as properties instead of variables >> helps. There is still one syntax for setting them and one for getting them. >> People are going to want to understand why it's good for it to be this way. >> Many will be coming from LESS and Sass where it is not this way. >> > > With the recent syntax change I think this is not hard to explain. > > You set a property like all properties are set: > > --foo: <value> > > In css, functions are how you represent a value that is not a literal. > E.g. attr(). So it's not hard to explain why the var() accessor function > exists. > > var(--foo) > > It's the same key in both cases. And seeing as how CSS has already used > almost every special character[1] I can see on my keyboard right now, I > think I'm ok with it not adding another sigil. > > Chris Eppstein > Sass Core Team Member > > [1]: Only $, &, ?, <, `, and = are left. Note that $ was explicitly > rejected here because CSS custom properties behave so differently from Sass > variables. > I'm not familiar with what @ is being used for. Why couldn't variables start with @? Why would it be difficult to implement this so that --foo in a property value means get the value of the foo property, making var(--foo) unnecessary? -- R. Mark Volkmann Object Computing, Inc.Received on Thursday, 3 April 2014 16:11:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:39 UTC