I'm using a great number of variables in my LESS implementation, however there are obviously many rules that are hard coded. The variables are defined on compile by a LESS file containing my style definitions.
Is it possible to split all of the CSS rules output by LESS into variable parts and constant parts, without manually creating two separate files?
So:
#myColour: white;
.foo {
background-colour: #myColour;
width: 120px;
}
becomes two files:
.foo {
background-colour: white;
}
and
.foo {
width: 120px;
}
This way if the theme changes, only the variables need to be reloaded.
Any ideas?
Thanks
Short Answer: No
"Without manually creating two separate files?" (emphasis added), the answer is "No."
You, the programmer, would have to code up two separate files , one that contains the variable calls, then one that contains the "hard coded" info (although, see UPDATE below). But I would not recommend that, as it would be hard to maintain (as far as seeing what is going on with the two different .foo entries in two different files). That's probably why you were hoping to split them after you coded (automatically), but this is just not possible to instruct LESS to output the variable property values to one file and the hard coded to another, at least, not automatically...
UPDATE: The Closest I Could Get
If I understand what you want, you want one file to code in, having the various selectors defined once, but having the properties able to split into a file of css that is variable controlled and therefore that file updated regularly, and one that is static (or "hard coded") that is rarely updated. Here is the closest I could come to coding for that. It is certainly not automatic, but does offer some "consistency" in how it functions.
Consider...
LESS Variables and Master files
// assume this is your variables file (variables.less)
#myColour: white;
// assume this is a master coding file, but it keeps all the properties
// "hidden" in nested mixins labled props()
// This file imports your variables.less file
// Note that the #file variable is NOT in the variables.less file, but
// is in the particular files used to split the code.
// We will call this file master.less
#import variables.less;
.foo {
.props() when (#file = var), (#file = all) {
background-colour: #myColour;
}
.props() when (#file = static), (#file = all) {
width: 120px;
}
& > p.nested {
.props() when (#file = var), (#file = all) {
background-colour: #myColour;
}
.props() when (#file = static), (#file = all) {
margin: 1em;
}
.props(); // call the props, each nesting needs its own props() call.
}
.props(); // call the props
}
Generate LESS Static File
// Assume this is your desired static only file, called staticCSS.less
// It has imported the master coding file to access mixins
// and all code is produced by setting the local #file variable in it
#import master.less;
#file: static; // only static css will output
CSS Static File Output
.foo {
width: 120px;
}
.foo > p.nested {
margin: 1em;
}
Generate LESS Variable Controlled File
// Assume this is your desired variable controlled file, called variableCSS.less
// It has imported the master coding file to access mixins
// and all code is produced by setting the local #file variable in it
#import master.less;
#file: var; // only variable css will output
CSS Variable Controlled File Output
.foo {
background-colour: #ffffff;
}
.foo > p.nested {
background-colour: #ffffff;
}
Generate All Properties
For testing purposes, or just to better see the total combined output of the files, I set the above mixins to all be called if #file: all was set, so you could do this in either of the files while testing:
#import master.less;
#file: all; //all css will output
CSS Variable Controlled File Output
.foo {
background-colour: #ffffff;
width: 120px;
}
.foo > p.nested {
background-colour: #ffffff;
margin: 1em;
}
The class is still fully usable as a mixin itself, or extendable (LESS 1.4)
Adding the following works (making it for #file: static here):
.test {.foo }
.test2 {&:extend(.foo all);}
CSS Output
.foo,
.test2 {
width: 120px;
}
.foo > p.nested,
.test2 > p.nested {
margin: 1em;
}
.test {
width: 120px;
}
.test > p.nested {
margin: 1em;
}
Related
So I'm currently doing some styling, following the BEM standard.
An example of what I'm doing could be this:
.block{
&__element {
}
}
what i would like to do is this:
// file a
.block {
...
}
-
// file b
// add magic to reference the `block`class in file a
&__elelemnt {
...
}
What I'm currently doing:
// file a
.block {
...
}
-
// file b
.block__elelemnt {
...
}
(manually adding the block part to the name)
Is there any way to reference this in a smarter way?
Thanks in advance
You can have this file structure:
block-1/
--block-1.scss
--element-1.scss
--element-2.scss
block-2/
--block-1.scss
--element-1.scss
--element-2.scss
And import elements files info block files.
block.scss:
.block {
color: red;
#import "element-1.scss";
#import "element-2.scss";
}
element-1.scss:
&__element-1 {
color: green;
}
Compiles to:
.block {
color: red;
&__element-1 {
color: green;
}
}
This is perhaps the best you can do.
$namespace: "block";
.#{$namespace}-myClass {
...
}
OUTPUT
.block-myClass {
...
}
You can keep a variable $namespace at the top of your file or in a different file and import it. The advantage of using a variable is you can update it once and all your references will be updated.
SASS is all about DRY.
As in, if you want to modify anything, you should be able to modify it from one single place. If you need anything available across multiple files, consider defining its value in a _vars file and including it everywhere you need it. Also note this has nothing to do with code shortness, but with code maintainability and flexibility.
In fact, even if you do get to write more code (which, in practice, doesn't happen), the advantage of DRY far outweighs it.
Here's how it should be done:
/* _vars.scss: */
$block:block;
/* a.scss: */
#import _vars;
.#{$block} {
...
}
/* b.scss: */
#import _vars;
.#{$block}__element {
...
}
Now, whenever you need to change block value, you can do it from one place: _vars.scss.
But, in practice, most people use the initial technique (nesting):
.block {
...
&__element {
...
}
}
Chances are .block and .block__element are related and, overall, it makes more sense to put them in same file. As your app grows in complexity, you'll find it harder to keep track of your code if you over-complicate it.
Is there any way to customize the variables in SASS?
For example:
.m-b-{$number} {
margin-bottom: $number;
}
If I give class="m-b-50" to an element, it should take margin-bottom 50. I just want to know if it is possible with SASS.
Yes it is possible with the help of variable interpolation or variable substitution which uses #{} for variable substitution in SASS and mixins which is a block of code just like function.
Interpolation is the process of evaluating an expression or a string containing one or more variables, yielding a result in which the variables are replaced with their corresponding values.
Simple example of interpolation and set values to the css property in SASS:
$number:60;
$n: 20px;
.m-b-#{$number}{
margin-bottom: #{$number}px;
margin-top: $n;
}
To create customize class names, will use mixins:
#mixin margin-class($side, $number) {
$firstLetter: str-slice($side, 0, 1);
.m-#{$firstLetter}-#{$number}{
margin-#{$side}: #{$number}px;
}
}
$margins: (10, 20);
$sides: ("top", "right", "bottom", "left");
#mixin generate-margin(){
#each $margin in $margins{
#each $side in $sides{
#include margin-class($side, $margin);
}
}
}
#include generate-margin();
Here, generate-margin() will get executed which will call margin-class() for each $margins and $sides, and will generate the below CSS classes:
.m-t-10 {
margin-top: 10px;
}
.m-r-10 {
margin-right: 10px;
}
.m-b-10 {
margin-bottom: 10px;
}
.m-l-10 {
margin-left: 10px;
}
.m-t-20 {
margin-top: 20px;
}
.m-r-20 {
margin-right: 20px;
}
.m-b-20 {
margin-bottom: 20px;
}
.m-l-20 {
margin-left: 20px;
}
That's the one way when you want only for specific values, but if you want to create margin class for 0-20, you can loop thru 0 to 20 as shown below:
#mixin generate-margin(){
#for $margin from 1 through 20{
#each $side in $sides{
#include margin-class($side, $margin);
}
}
}
For anyone else facing this issue, here is how one can achieve this:-
#for $i from 1 through 10 {
.mb-#{$i} {
margin-bottom: #{$i}rem;
}
}
The answer is: no it is not possible. SASS is just a language to pre-generate CSS for you. There is no on-demand, dynamic creation of classes triggered by the contents of your HTML markup. When it comes time for the browser to render your HTML and apply your specified classes, it is still just using CSS. I.e. if you assign class="m-b-50" to an element, the class .m-b-50 must already be explicitly defined somewhere. As noted in the other answers, SASS can make it easier to generate a bunch of pre-defined classes but you must know which values you want to support up front.
Now, you could generate classes for some very large, all-inclusive range like -1000 to 1000 to effectively support all values you might ever try to use and it would seem to do what you wanted, but you would be forcing your users to download a larger CSS file with, most likely, a large percentage of it being unused CSS which is wasteful and can be inconsiderate in a world of paid & limited data plans.
I need to compile a LESS file and mix in some of the classes used in other files, but I don't want to print the whole contents of the imported files.
This looks pretty much like silent selectors in SASS.
How can this be achieved?
"muted" imports are not yet implemented in the current stable version of less (1.4.2 as of as of this post), but are planned for inclusion in 1.5.0. source #github issues
They don't seem to be working in the current beta, but when they are finally baked in, the implementation should like this:
PSEUDO CODE
reference.less:
.not-awesome {
color: red;
}
.awesome {
color: blue;
}
main.less:
#import (mute) "foo.less";
.more-awesome:extend(.awesome){
font-size:8em;
}
output:
.awesome,
.more-awesome {
color: blue;
}
.more-awesome {
font-size: 8em;
}
So lets say I set the background of 10 elements on the page to #base, then a user lands on the "Foo" page which has the class on the body of the page.
How does one update the #base via a css declaration? I understand that variables are local to a function (or css declaration) but there must be a method to do this! (would make styling alternative pages so easy!)
#base: #00000;
body.foo{
#base = #FFF;
}
LESS is a Preprocessor so...
...it all has to be precompiled into CSS ahead of time. That means all possible class combinations need to be made into valid CSS ahead of time. If you wanted something like this, you would need to do something like the following in your LESS:
LESS
#base: #000000;
.setColorOptions(#className: ~'', #base: #base) {
#classDot: escape(`('#{className}' == '' ? '' : '.')`);
#class: escape(#className);
body#{classDot}#{class} {
someElement {color: #base;}
.someClass {color: #base;}
// etc.
}
}
.setColorOptions();
.setColorOptions(foo, #fff);
.setColorOptions(bar, #ccc);
CSS Output
body someElement {
color: #000000;
}
body .someClass {
color: #000000;
}
body.foo someElement {
color: #ffffff;
}
body.foo .someClass {
color: #ffffff;
}
body.bar someElement {
color: #cccccc;
}
body.bar .someClass {
color: #cccccc;
}
Obviously if there were many elements and a lot of color dependent things going on, this could get big fast. Imagine 100 elements under body with three color variations as above, and you have 300+ lines of CSS, 200+ (two-thirds) of which do not apply to any one page. And this doesn't account for other changes, like background colors, etc. In such a case, it is best to set up different LESS files that import a different set of values for #base and build different style sheets to be loaded on the pages that need it. However, if you are just doing a small subset of color changes to a page, this could be a valid way to go.
There is no way to do that.
LESS has no way to know whether the selector body.foo will apply at compile time.
Is there any way to bypass LESS scoping? It's becoming annoying. Basically, I have a .text-box which defines background, border, etc. Then, in a sub-section there's a one-off change to add a margin-top: .text-box { margin-top: 10px }. Now I can't use .text-box within that section and get my original box styles; instead, all I get is the margin-top. How can I get the definition higher in the heirarchy? I suppose I could make it a function, and call that function in both places, but being that I'm using LESS, I want to do less and KISS. In PHP, you'd get to the global namespace by using / prefix, or in C++ using :: prefix.
Additionally, it doesn't seem like any definitions with the node name work for prototyping. Meaning, I can't declare it ul.products, and then use ul.categories { ul.products }. I have to omit the node name in order to re-use it. Meaning: .categories { .products }. Is this an oversight/impossibility?
Thanks
ok so let's say you've got your mixin defined, for example:
.text-box {
background: #eee;
border: 1px solid #ccc;
color: #333;
margin-top: 5px;
}
now you want to add property or modify it in some subsection, then simply do this:
div.content {
div.sub_section {
.text-box;
margin-top: 10px; // this will override 5px defined in the mixin.
}
}
...which is putting your mixin in place, and adding some property you need to add (which will override any property from the mixin itself BUT make sure the overriding property is defined AFTER the mixin is called.
it's not ideal solution, as it creates two declarations in the output css file (there will be one from mixin followed by the one you defined in .sub_section), but otherwise I don't know a solution to this problem other than defining a parametric mixin..
--
your second issue - I think that less doesn't support scope-limited definitions on purpose... if you really need to know that certain mixin is to be used by a specific tag, I would deal with it like so:
.ul_products { ... }
.ul_categories { .ul_products; ... }
ul.categories { .ul_categories; }
you can also define a bundle and call stuff from there:
#ul {
.products { ... }
.categories { ... }
}
ul.categories { #ul > categories; }
i hope i got it right.. ?