Change syntax from block() to column(), row(), and waffle() about lost

[abass]

I have personally never been a big fan of having too many variables. Using mixins instead definitely look better. Though it is nice just having block always be the primary mixin.

I think a lot of people are used to using the "col" paradigm on on things like bootstrap and other grid systems. Especially on the competing Jeet preprocessing grid system at col() / column(). I think that more people will be comfortable with it and willing to come over simply by making this as similar as possible but just produce better code and have more functionality (like it does).

So part of me says keep it block() but the other part of me likes how descriptive row(), column(), and waffle() are. The second code is definitely more readable. I'm torn though, would really like to hear what others have to say about this.

[corysimmons]

I'm playing around with it now and definitely enjoy the new syntax better. Gonna go ahead and implement and just hope everyone is happy with it.

[stolinski]

I like it. I agree that people are used to col/column.

[corysimmons]

👍

[corysimmons]

Should be done in about 30 mins.

[corysimmons]

• Stylus
• SCSS
• LESS

[corysimmons]

Fixed b2cc4be

[dmitrykiselyov]

I tried It and I liked It 👍

[corysimmons]

@dmitrykiselyov IKR! I've been toying with it all night and it just feels better. As an added bonus it broke up that huge block() mixin so now it's much more maintainable/extendable. =)

[dbox]

Is this still the case or do I have to use lost-column ?

[corysimmons]

@dbox Since 6.0.0 you need to use lost-column, lost-row, lost-waffle.

[dbox]

For namespacing reasons? Will def miss col() ...
On Wed, May 20, 2015 at 11:57 AM Cory Simmons [email protected]
wrote:

@dbox https://github.com/dbox Since 6.0.0 you need to use lost-column,
lost-row, lost-waffle.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#54 (comment).

[corysimmons]

Yeah for namespacing. I miss column and such too, but we don't want to step on W3C's toes when they add some column property yknow?

[dbox]

So just my .02:

Even being familiar with Jeet, it took me a few seconds to realize what Lost was. If I'm going to be using this with my team, and the first thing they see is lost-column, they are going to be confused. In fact, it almost says the opposite of what it is really doing. I know we can easily set up some aliases internally, but then when someone goes to the lost docs it will still be in those names. Not the end of the word, but not ideal.

And, you won't want to hear this, but if mass-adoption is an end goal (which, maybe it's not), I'm not sure Lost is the best name. IMHO, I would go with something like Lattice, which hints hints at columns, rows, waffle, and of course being the structure from which the product grows (just imagine that sweet logo with a small leaf starting to grow out 😄 ). Obviously, just an example, but, names are important!

Please don't take this as negative. You've done incredible job with this, and I can't wait to use it (with some name changes – either internally or officially).

Maybe, at the very least, it'd be good to include some aliases for old-schoolers.

Thanks again for all the hard work, and I'd be happy to help out where I can, whether it be on the site or something else.

[corysimmons]

I agree but I already named it Lost so I think we're stuck with it. 💃

I don't understand your point about lost-column not representing what it actually is? They are definitely columns within a row (just like every other grid system names them).

Even the Jeet team is going to start namespacing as some of Jeet's stuff started conflicting with CSS syntax (center for instance). So far as aliasing, I'm kind of against aliasing in general nowadays. It makes it so half the users are doing it one way, and the other half are doing it another way - even the Stylus team is going to start locking their syntax I think because this really divides up the developer community when you give them syntax preferences. Also, the aliases might conflict with CSS spec in the future so aliasing lost-column as just column would probably break in the future.

[dbox]

I just meant that literally a lost-column sounds like something that used to be a column but now it's lost.

[corysimmons]

Oh I see. Hopefully people can figure it out. 👯

[dbox]

okie dokie. I'll keep lattice for myself. 😄 💵

[dbox]

If I'm using lost with stylus how would I do the aliases?

col = lost-column doesn't work as usual.

[corysimmons]

Are you using the PostCSS version of Lost with Stylus or are you using an old version of Lost?

[dbox]

Postcss

On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 9:16 AM Cory Simmons [email protected]
wrote:

Are you using the PostCSS version of Lost with Stylus or are you using an
old version of Lost?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#54 (comment).

[corysimmons]

col = lost-column: 1/2 wouldn't work since Stylus needs something like a mixin to alias.

Try:

grid($x)
  lost-column: x

col-third = grid(1/3)

It might work but Stylus might error out as well.

[dbox]

https://github.com/seaneking/postcss-alias

maybe this?

[corysimmons]

Yeah. But tbh, it seems like another level of abstraction you don't need.

[dbox]

you dont know how much i want to just say col haha

[corysimmons]

ha, then yeah postcss alias looks like it'll do the job.