Logical operator support

[am11]

Don't know what spec has to say about it, but logically this code:

.foo {
    height: 1/2 ==   0.5 ?   3 : 2;
}

.bar {
  sanity: 1/2 ==   0.5;
}

Should compile to

.foo {
  height: 3;
}

.bar {
  sanity: true;
}

(at least this is how SASS do it)

Currently it throws:

ParseError: Unrecognised input in C:\temp\foo.less on line 2, column 5:
1 .foo {
2     height: 1/2 ==   0.5 ?   3 : 2;
3 }

[seven-phases-max]

Well, Less development is sort of use-case driven, so even a useful feature thrown in w/o any real-world examples ("just because it can be added or just because Fortran has it") will barely go too far.
Either way see #1894.

[seven-phases-max]

Closing as duplicate of #1894.

[am11]

just because it can be added or just because Fortran has it

Sorry for mentioning the rival brand :p

It's just a logical operation, you can think of handful of real-world use cases for this:

@denominator: 0.5;

selector {
  height: 1/2 ==   @denominator ?   3 : 2;
}

When implementing it, it would probably make sense to print true / false in case the usual ternary operation is missing:

@denominator: 0.5;

some-other-selector-with-dummy-property {
  dummy: 1/2 ==   @denominator;
}

// =>
// some-other-selector-with-dummy-property {
//  dummy: true;
//}

or not..

Peace! ✌️

[seven-phases-max]

Sorry for mentioning the rival brand :p

It's absolutely OK to mention Sass here. My Fortran note was just a sarcastic remark hinting to the fact that Less as a language has very few to do with C-like languages (incl. Sass, JS or PHP) as well as with Fortran :) (I.e. when taking into account some C-like syntax or feature to be added one needs at least to consider possible conflicts with CSS syntax/selectors/ops/etc. Though this was mentioned in #1894 already I guess).

It's just a logical operation, you can think of handful of real-world use cases for this:

Yes, sure we all know what a ternary operator is. A use-example is better to answer "what for?" question (not just "what?" or "how?")... But, well,never mind - yet again see #1894.