Cannot compile nested multiple variables with latest 1_4_0

[alexo]

I've tested the latest version from branch 1_4_0 and apparently it fails for the following example (which works correctly with 1.3.1):

    @xxx: 4px;
    @variable: 10;

    first:something(@variable), second:pseudoclass(@xxx) {
      @xxx: 'string';
      @variable: 'other';

      declaration: value;

      nested1:length(@xxx), nested2:content(@variable) {
        declaration: value;
      }
      nested3:content(@variable), nested4:length(@xxx) {
        declaration: value;
      }
    }

    first:something(@variable), second:pseudoclass(@xxx) {
      @xxx: 'string';
      @variable: 'other';

      declaration: value;

      nested1:length(@xxx), nested2:content(@variable) {
        declaration: value;
        deep1:length(@xxx), deep2:content(@variable) {
          declaration: 1 2;
        }
        deep3, deep4 {
          declaration: 3 4;
        }
      }
    }

The error message is:

{
  "type": "Parse",
  "message": "Syntax Error on line 4",
  "index": 43.0,
  "filename": null,
  "line": 4.0,
  "column": 16.0,
  "extract": [
    "",
    "first:something(@variable), second:pseudoclass(@xxx) {",
    "  @xxx: 'string';"
  ]

[lukeapage]

first:something(@variable), second:pseudoclass(@xxx) {

needs to be (at the moment on 1.4.0)

first:something(@{variable}), second:pseudoclass(@{xxx}) {

this matches the replaced selector format, e.g.

.@{a} {
}

[alexo]

Just wondering, wouldn't this test-case make the new version (1.4.0) incompatible with previous versions?

[lukeapage]

yes, 1.4.0 will have lots of breaking changes in it. We are putting all the breaking changes into 1.4.0 with new big features and putting bug fixes into 1.3.2

[lukeapage]

we have yet to commit the main breaking change to 1.4.0 which is that all calculations must be done in brackets.

[gaurav21r]

+1
Bootstrap is not compiling with LESS 1.4

1.4 has extends functionality. Can it be merged into 1.3.2 with backward compatibility? #1048

[lukeapage]

Extend isn't finished.. I'm about to push some more changes.. so no, it
doesn't make sense. Please encourage bootstrap to use the new format and
therefore require 1.3.1.

[gaurav21r]

@agatronic I didn't understand "require 1.3.1". Will 1.3.1 have extends functionality when it is finished?
Also please check the issue and pull request at #1048 It allows extend-like functionality in 1.3.1. Can it be merged?

[mdo]

@agatronic Do you have a succinct list of changes for 1.4 going yet, perhaps with examples? I'd love to make Bootstrap ready for 1.4. Any info you guys have to share would be most helpful :).

[lukeapage]

I say require 1.3.1 because the breaking changes in 1.4.0 can be avoided by using things supported in 1.3.1

@mdo there are only 2 things you need to do

1. Put all operations into brackets

2. replace

   ~(@{a}) {
   }

or

:nth-child(@a)

with

@{a} {
}
:nth-child(@a)

both are supported in 1.3.1

Since brackets requirement is not in the 1.4.0 branch yet, the problem in this bug was (2)

[gaurav21r]

@mdo THanks for responding to my request but can we move the issue back to (twbs/bootstrap#6037) ? The original issue is getting ignored.

@agatronic @cloudhead Can you please give me feedback on the pull request at #1048 as mentioned above? It will add the much needed support for having Standard CSS Selectors as mixins. And its within the scope of 1.3.1

[lukeapage]

@gaurav21r the scope of 1.3.x releases is mainly bug fixes and critical issues and documentation, to get less back on track. I don't have any big objection to your feature (or I would have said something) but I marked it low priority because there are other things lots of people have been asking for, for a long long time. If you or anyone else has a pull request and @MatthewDL agrees to it (he is rightfully stricter than me - someone has to me) and cloudhead doesn't disagree, then we could move it into 1.4 or 1.3.2

[matthew-dean]

The strictness is my German DNA, mixed with American obnoxiousness, tempered only by living in Canada.

What am I agreeing to? This thread sort of jumps around.

[matthew-dean]

Related to @mdo's question: can we put together documentation for 1.4.0 before we actually launch that version? I'd also love it if we did something like a "Gold Master" for 1.4.0. That is, there's no changes, but it's not released as a build yet. That could give time for Crunch, Simpless, Less.app to update apps for launch. Same thing with Bootstrap. With the breaking changes, we should give them a chance to manage the transition, and to have apps ready to compile Bootstrap.

My conservatism is due to the fact that I want devs to think of LESS as reliable. I think all the breaking changes are good and necessary, but they are also a big deal and I want the fewest people surprised. Maybe we can do something as simple as documenting the old syntax vs. new.

[mdo]

@MatthewDL Yes, please!

[gaurav21r]

Hi @MatthewDL Yea this thread sure does jump around!!!

As for What am I agreeing to?, kindly refer to the thread and pull request at #1048 and we can continue the discussion there. @agatronic has no objections to the feature. @cloudhead , @MatthewDL , waiting for your feedback please.

[matthew-dean]

Commented on the pull request.