GNU bug report logs - #50345
28.0.50; [PATCH] Filling holes in css-mode.el

Previous Next

To add a comment to this bug, you must first unarchive it, by sending
a message to control AT debbugs.gnu.org, with unarchive 50345 in the body.
You can then email your comments to 50345 AT debbugs.gnu.org in the normal way.

Toggle the display of automated, internal messages from the tracker.

Message #5 received at submit <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
To: bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org
Subject: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Filling holes in css-mode.el
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 20:46:12 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello!

In $DAYJOB, right now we are working on a larger redesign of our
customer facing web app.  As such I'm knee deep in css these days.  I've
noticed there are some holes in the completion keywords, and I'd like to
start addressing those.  Hence the first, simple starting-point patch.
Before I continue adding patches, I'd like some pointers as to how I
should structure them.  For example - lots of keywords are now shared
between grid and flex. An example is `align-content', which is now
under a section devoted to flex.  However, there are some newer,
grid-related completion keywords that are not in this section, nor
anywhere else.  See line 306 in css-mode.el. I guess the solution here
is to add `start' and `end' there, but I want to check first.

Should I add several, smaller patches, or one big correction of most of
the things I see at the moment?  

Best,
Theodor Thornhill

[0001-Add-selection-to-css-pseudo-element-ids.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #8 received at 50345 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
To: 50345 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Filling holes in css-mode.el
Date: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 23:22:17 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hi again!

I took the liberty to add the keywords from [0].

I moved the justify and align parts out from the flex block and into its
own block.  I also took the liberty to add the `place' variants as well.
These are used a lot when using grid to set up your web page.  I hope
this is usable.  I see that some properties are extracted out into
variables, but not sure what is standard practice here.

Good evening,
Theodor


[0]: https://www.w3.org/TR/css-align-3

[0001-Add-CSS-Box-Alignment-Module-Level-3-to-css-mode.patch (text/x-patch, attachment)]

Message #11 received at 50345 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi <at> gnus.org>
To: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
Cc: 50345 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#50345: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Filling holes in css-mode.el
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:15:46 +0200

Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no> writes:

> Should I add several, smaller patches, or one big correction of most of
> the things I see at the moment?  

Smaller patches are best, I think.

Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no> writes:

> I moved the justify and align parts out from the flex block and into its
> own block.  I also took the liberty to add the `place' variants as well.
> These are used a lot when using grid to set up your web page.  I hope
> this is usable.  I see that some properties are extracted out into
> variables, but not sure what is standard practice here.

Both patches look good to me; pushed to Emacs 28 now.

-- 
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
   bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

Message #16 received at 50345 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Simen Heggestøyl <simenheg <at> runbox.com>
To: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
Cc: 50345 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#50345: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Filling holes in css-mode.el
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 09:46:52 +0200

Hi Theodor,

Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no> <bug-gnu-emacs <at> gnu.org> writes:

> I took the liberty to add the keywords from [0].

Thanks!

> I see that some properties are extracted out into variables, but not
> sure what is standard practice here.

I've previously tried keeping them one-to-one with the property index
grammars (https://www.w3.org/TR/css-align-3/#property-index).

So for instance `place-content` would just refer back to `align-content`
and `justify-content` without the need to repeat their properties:

  ("place-content" align-content justify-content)

`align-content` is a bit more convoluted, with a mix of a literal value
and value classes in the grammar:

  ("align-content" "normal" baseline-position content-distribution
   overflow-position content-position)

The value classes aren't properties, so their values go into
`css-value-class-alist`. For instance, `baseline-position` can take
values:

  (baseline-position "first" "last" "baseline")

This can then be reused by other properties again.

Does this make sense? I should probably document this practice a bit
better. 😅

-- Simen

Message #19 received at 50345 <at> debbugs.gnu.org (full text, mbox):

From: Theodor Thornhill <theo <at> thornhill.no>
To: Simen Heggestøyl <simenheg <at> runbox.com>
Cc: 50345 <at> debbugs.gnu.org
Subject: Re: bug#50345: 28.0.50; [PATCH] Filling holes in css-mode.el
Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 11:08:02 +0200

Hi, Simen!

>
> Thanks!

My pleasure!

>
>> I see that some properties are extracted out into variables, but not
>> sure what is standard practice here.
>
> I've previously tried keeping them one-to-one with the property index
> grammars (https://www.w3.org/TR/css-align-3/#property-index).
>
> So for instance `place-content` would just refer back to `align-content`
> and `justify-content` without the need to repeat their properties:
>
>   ("place-content" align-content justify-content)
>
> `align-content` is a bit more convoluted, with a mix of a literal value
> and value classes in the grammar:
>
>   ("align-content" "normal" baseline-position content-distribution
>    overflow-position content-position)
>
> The value classes aren't properties, so their values go into
> `css-value-class-alist`. For instance, `baseline-position` can take
> values:
>
>   (baseline-position "first" "last" "baseline")
>
> This can then be reused by other properties again.
>
> Does this make sense? I should probably document this practice a bit
> better. 😅
>

Yeah, this is the answer I wanted. I'll look into doing this in the next
patches I send.  I think it would be nice to document this down the line
as well, yes.  I can see what I can do about that too :)

Have a nice weekend!

Theodor

Previous Next

GNU bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.