I'm using the SASS port of Bootstrap, and I'm wondering if there's any difference between using the pre-defined mixins and using SASS's #extend.
For instance, if I have:
<div class="wrapper">
Some content here....
</div>
Is there any difference between doing
.wrapper {
#include make-row();
}
and
.wrapper {
#extend .row;
}
?
If there's no difference, are there other mixins that aren't equivalent to a single #extend statement? If there aren't such mixins, why do the mixins even exist?
The big difference between #extend and a mixin is the way the css is compiled. It doesn't look like much in simple examples, but the differences and implications are significant and can be a real headache in the wild if used carelessly. #extend is a little bit like fools gold, looks great at first, but ...
Let's look at a simple example:
#extend
.row {
width: 50px;
}
.new-row {
#extend .row;
}
.another-row {
#extend .row;
}
compiles into:
.row,
.new-row,
.another-row {
width: 50px;
}
mixin
#mixin row() {
width: 50px;
}
.new-row {
#include row();
}
.another-row {
#include row();
}
compiles into:
.new-row {
width: 50px;
}
.another-row {
width: 50px;
}
A mixin includes the properties everywhere it is hit - copying them each time - whereas an #extend groups the selectors and defines the properties once. This isn't immediately obvious, because the difference is in the compiled css but it has some important implications:
Load order
With #extend the selectors will be grouped at the first point in the sass where they are encountered which can lead to some weird over-riding. If you define a selector and use #extend to bring in a property to and try to override a property defined earlier in your sass, but after the point at which the extended properties are grouped in the css then the override will not work. This can be quite perplexing.
Consider this logically ordered set of css definitions and the likely HTML: <div class='row highlight-row'></div>:
.red-text {
color: red;
}
.row {
color: green;
}
.highlight-row {
#extend .red-text;
}
compiles into:
.red-text,
.highlight-row {
color: red;
}
.row {
color: green;
}
So even though the sass ordering makes it look like the row colour would be red, the compiled css will make it green
Poor groupings
#extend can result in poorly grouped selectors in the resulting css. You can end up with thirty or forty unrelated things all sharing the same property for example. Using #extend for fonts is a good example of this.
Nesting
If you are using deeply nested sass (which is not good, btw) and you use #extend you will duplicate the fully nested selector for every #extend you use, resulting in bloated css. I've seen this a lot:
.selector-1 .selector-2 .selector-3 .selector-4,
.selector-1 .selector-2 .selector-3 .selector-4 a,
.selector-1 .selector-2 .selector-3 .selector-4 li,
.selector-1 .selector-2 .selector-3 .selector-4 td {
font-family: arial;
}
If you're new to SASS it pays to look at the compiled css.
Media queries
#extend do not work inside media queries, because media queries are not selectors.
Conclusion
My rule of thumb is to use an #extend over a mixin if you have no parameters and if you can reasonably define the #extend and share it amongst a few tightly related selectors that exist nearby in the sass, for example, in the same file that defines a sass module. Buttons are a good example of well used #extend:
%button {
padding: 10px;
}
.call-to-action {
#extend %button;
background-color: $green;
}
.submit {
#extend %button;
background-color: $grey;
}
The best article to help make the choice is here
PS, the % sign is a use of placeholder extends
Related
Are there any tools to compile CSS custom properties declared at not :root rule? I want following code with custom properties
.dark {
--bg-color: black;
--fg-color: white;
}
.light {
--bg-color: white;
--fg-color: black;
}
.foo {
background: var(--bg-color);
display: block;
}
.bar {
color: var(--fg-color);
display: inline;
}
be compiled to their non-custom-prop equivalents like that
.light .foo, .light.foo {
background: white;
}
.dark .foo, .dark.foo {
background: black;
}
.light .bar, .light.bar {
color: black;
}
.dark .bar, .dark.bar {
color: white;
}
.foo {
display: block;
}
.bar {
display: inline;
}
The goal is to
switch color schemes by switching dark/light class on root DOM element
use valid css syntax (no sass less)
keep rules code compact
It's actually not safe to do that. I can tell you because I tried so hard to make a safe transformation.
But I failed.
https://github.com/postcss/postcss-custom-properties/issues/1
Ideal solution. Your example is valid CSS and can be used in many browsers (not in IE, Edge (but is in development) and Opera Mini as of writing this answer, 2017-03-27, other major browsers are fine).
Suboptimal solution. Some CSS can be transpiled to achieve better browser support. The solution I found does not support variables on non-:root elements, however. There are also other objections against transpiling of 'future' CSS into 'current' CSS. To the best of my knowledge, you will have to implement your own transpiler (or postcss plugin) if you want to transpile custom properties not on the :root element, but be warned that that is hard in general. Now you don't need the general part, so it is possible. Just does, to the best of my knowledge, not exist yet.
Preprocessing solution. Of course, you don't need a general implementation of custom properties. You have different themes that have their own values for the same set of properties and that's it. Thus, a separate stylesheet can be created as a preprocessing step using any CSS preprocessor.
Now you say the following,
use valid css syntax (no sass less)
but I am going to show this anyway, because I believe that it is a valid solution to your problem. It is definitely the only one I know that actually works if you want to/need to support IE, Edge and/or older versions of other major browsers (Firefox < 31, Chrome < 49, Safari < 9.1, Opera < 36)
You could do this using SASS for example, to do the transpiling on the server side.
// define styles, use variables throughout them
// your entire style definition goes into this mixin
#mixin myStyles($fg-color, $bg-color) {
.foo {
display: block;
background: $bg-color;
}
.bar {
display: inline;
color: $fg-color;
}
}
// define themes, that set variables for the above styles
// use named arguments for clarity
.dark {
#include myStyles(
$fg-color: white,
$bg-color: black
);
}
.light {
#include myStyles(
$fg-color: black,
$bg-color: white
);
}
This compiles to the following.
.dark .foo {
display: block;
background: black;
}
.dark .bar {
display: inline;
color: white;
}
.light .foo {
display: block;
background: white;
}
.light .bar {
display: inline;
color: black;
}
This is not exactly what you want to obtain, but very close. Realistically, I think this is the closest you will get to obtaining your desired output. I know you want to
keep rules code compact
but what you are saying there (I think) is that you want to split out custom properties from their rules to save on number of rules, which is not something any preprocessor I know supports.
You can organize your source SASS in separate files to keep an overview easily. You can even set up a build system that generates a separate stylesheet for every theme you have. It is then possible to have your users select an alternative stylesheet. Browsers have some support for this, but switching using JavaScript is also definitely possible in the latter case. Simply set all stylesheets to be disabled except for the selected one. Here is an example.
With the LESS preprocessor, you can nest CSS code inside other CSS code, like this:
.Element {
.AnotherElement {
background-color: #FFF;
}
.YetAnotherElement {
background-color: #000;
}
}
This would make the background of .Element .AnotherElement white, and it makes .Element .YetAnotherElement have a background color of black. It does it all without writing it out like:
.Element .AnotherElement {
background-color: #FFF;
}
.Element .YetAnotherElement {
background-color: #000;
}
Does the first example coincide with CSS syntax, or do I have to use the LESS preprocessor?
Nesting is a feature of LESS and SASS, not native to CSS.
This is one of the most common uses for CSS preprocessors, but they offer a lot more too.
No, css doesn't support this syntax, in your css example the "Element" and "AnotherElement" will to receive this properties, AnotherElement will not inherit properties of Element.
tl:dr version: is there a way to #extend a css class and not have the original class appear in my compiled css without changing all my css classes to %placeholder classes?
Short answer based on the below answers: it appears there is no way to do this unless you go through and convert the css to silent/placeholder classes e.g. convert .one{} to %one{} and even then that will cause problems with media queries.
I have a css file (lets call it "style.css") which contains 200+ CSS classes to style various elements like forms and buttons etc. What I want is to include some of those classes in a project and other classes from that file in other random projects/websites. With each new project I also want to give the classes random semantic class names of my choosing.
My preprocessor of choice when working with CSS is SCSS and I really need an answer that uses the power of SCSS.
Here is a quick example of what I'm talking about - loading css into a SCSS file and then extending that css with my own class names:
//style.css
.one {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
//style2.scss
#import "style.css";
.two {
#extend .one;
}
The problem here is that my SCSS file will compile to CSS and look like this:
//style2.css
.one {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
.two {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
But what I want to do is only include the second class, which I gave a special name.
I've tried a few ways of doing this but here's one example that does not work but is along the lines of what I was thinking I should be able to do:
A.) First, I grab the style.css file and chuck copy/paste it into a style.scss file.
B.) Second I wrap all the whole thing in a placeholder/silent class, like so:
//style.scss
%placeholder {
.one {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
}
C.) Then I import that SCSS file and try and extend a class of my choosing that is within the placeholder, like this:
//style2.scss
#import "style";
.two {
#extend .one;
}
When I try and compile this I get a blank css file (and rightly so for trying to be too tricky). The other thing I know is that you can't extend nested selectors so "#extend %placeholder .one;" is also out of the question.
My question is this: does anyone know of a way to import and then extend a css class so that the compiled result does not include the imported css?
The only other solution I can think of is to just delete the imported css from the top of my file before I let it out into the wild. But this is honestly less than ideal solution.
Thank you in advance to any answers :)
You're using placeholders incorrectly, the placeholder should simply be one, no need to wrap it. Try this:
// style.scss
%one {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
// style2.scss
#import "style";
.two {
#extend %one;
}
Note that there is an issue with this approach. While the outputted CSS is leaner than using a mixin (#include), you will not be able to use %one inside of any #media queries. Ie. this will not work:
// style2.scss
#import "style";
#media screen and (max-width:1024px) {
.two {
// This won't produce CSS as it's inside the media query
#extend %one;
}
}
The only way I'm aware to get around this is to use a mixin instead of a placeholder which will result in more CSS (if you use one more than once).
// style.scss
#mixin one() {
color: red;
padding-top: 1px;
}
// style2.scss
#import "style";
#media screen and (max-width:1024px) {
.two {
#include one();
}
}
I've detailed the difference in output between mixins and placeholder selectors on my blog if you're not aware.
In LESS you can do that:
.my-class {
color:blue;
}
.my-other-class {
.my-class;
font-size:14px;
}
In Sass it can be done with #extend:
.my-other-class {
#extend .my-class;
font-size:14px;
}
But here, in comment to main text, MartinAnsty says that it might not work with #media directives.
So functionality of #extend in Sass and mixins in LESS are fully equal?
It will work, Martin means the mediaquery will also be extended, if class have them. So if .my-class has got media query max-width 500{ color: blue }, and min-width 600 { color: green } you have to remeber that it will be executed in extend.
Is it possibile to add span3 class in a mixin to avoid putting it in every element in my HTML?
Something like:
.myclass {
.span3;
// other rules...
}
EDIT
I apologize I forgot to specify an important detail: span3 is a standard class of Bootstrap.
I didn't find its definition in any file of the Bootstrap framework.
New Answer (requires LESS 1.4.0)
What you actually desire is something known as extending in LESS and SASS terminology. For example, you want an HTML element (just an example)...
<div class="myclass"></div>
...to fully behave as if it had a span3 class from bootstrap added to it, but without actually adding that class in the HTML. This can be done in LESS 1.4.0 using :extend(), but still not easily, mainly because of the dynamic class generation of bootstrap will not be picked up by :extend().
Here is an example. Assume this initial LESS code (not dynamically generated .span3 classes as bootstrap does):
.span3 {
width: 150px;
}
.someClass .span3 {
font-size: 12px;
}
.someOtherClass.span3 {
background: blue;
}
You add this LESS code in 1.4.0:
.myclass {
&:extend(.span3);
}
Which produces this CSS:
.span3,
.myclass {
width: 150px;
}
.someClass .span3 {
font-size: 12px;
}
.someOtherClass.span3 {
background: blue;
}
NOTE how it did not automatically extend the other instances of .span3. This is different than SASS, but it only means you need to be a bit more explicit in extending. This has the advantage of avoiding excessive CSS code bloat.
To fully extend, simply add the all keyword in the extend() (this is updated from my original code, as I was unaware of the all option):
.myclass {
&:extend(.span3 all);
}
Which produces this:
.span3,
.myclass {
width: 150px;
}
.someClass .span3,
.someClass .myclass {
font-size: 12px;
}
.someOtherClass.span3,
.someOtherClass.myclass {
background: blue;
}
That makes your .myclass fully equivalent (in my example) to the .span3 class. What this means in your case, however, is that you need to redefine any dynamic class generations of bootstrap to be non-dynamic. Something like this:
.span3 {
.span(3);
}
This is so the :extend(.span3) will find a hard coded class to extend to. This would need to be done for any selector string that dynamically uses .span#{index} to add the .span3.
Original Answer
This answer assumed you desired to mixin properties from a dynamically generated class (that is what I thought your issue was).
Okay, I believe I discovered your issue. First of all, bootstrap defines the .spanX series of classes in the mixins.less file, so you obviously need to be sure you are including that in your bootstrap load. However, I assume it is a given that you have those included already.
Main Problem
The main issue is how bootstrap is generating those now, through a dynamic class name in a loop. This is the loop that defines the .spanX series:
.spanX (#index) when (#index > 0) {
.span#{index} { .span(#index); }
.spanX(#index - 1);
}
.spanX (0) {}
Currently, because the class name itself is being dynamically generated, it cannot be used as a mixin name. I don't know if this is a bug or merely a limitation of LESS, but I do know that at present time of writing, any dynamically generated class name does not function as a mixin name. Therefore, .span3 may be in the CSS code to put as a class in your HTML, but it is not directly available to access for mixin purposes.
The Fix
However, because of how they have structured the code, you can still get what you need, because as you can see above in the loop code, they use a true mixin itself to define the code for the .spanX classes. Therefore, you should be able to do this:
.myclass {
.span(3);
// other rules...
}
The .span(3) code is what the loop is using to populate the .span3 class, so calling it for your classes will give the same code that .span3 has. Specifically bootstrap has this defined in mixins.less for that mixin:
.span (#columns) {
width: (#fluidGridColumnWidth * #columns) + (#fluidGridGutterWidth * (#columns - 1));
*width: (#fluidGridColumnWidth * #columns) + (#fluidGridGutterWidth * (#columns - 1)) - (.5 / #gridRowWidth * 100 * 1%);
}
So you will get the width properties for the .span3 in your .myclass.
This is easy to accomplish with Less.js, but the real question is: "Should I mix structural grid classes with my non-structural classes?"
And the answer is no.
This is a bad idea, the advantage of a grid system is that it creates a separation of concerns between structural styling and other styling. I'm not saying "it should never, ever, ever be done". But in general, it shouldn't. I don't even like seeing this:
<div class="span3 sidebar">
<ul class="nav">
...
</ul>
</div>
Where the span3 is in the same div as the .sidebar class. The problem with this is that now your sidebar is not just "floating around" inside a column of the grid, it has become part of the grid - which (in general) makes it even more difficult to maintain your styles because of the workarounds you need to create to force this kind of styling to be responsive.
Well you can do it but you have to define .somethign first, in this example I will do it font-wight: bold; and font-size 20px. As you can see in second class .body I didn't have to define font-weight: bold; and font-size: 20px; I just added .something into it
.something {
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 20px;
}
.body {
background-color: gray;
border: ridge 2px black;
.something
}
You can see example here. http://jsfiddle.net/7GMZd/
YOU CAN'T DO IT THIS WAY
.body {
background-color: gray;
border: ridge 2px black;
.something {
font-weight: bold;
font-size: 20px;
}
}