Implement calc() in the low-level API
#773
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
nicoburns
force-pushed
the
calc
branch
3 times, most recently
from
ba182ce to
9e556c8
Compare
Signed-off-by: Nico Burns <[email protected]>
nicoburns
added a commit
to nicoburns/taffy
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2025
Regression from DioxusLabs#773 (implement calc in low-level API)
nicoburns
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 10, 2025
Regression from #773 (implement calc in low-level API)
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Objective
calc()is super-useful for creating advanced layouts. This PR implementscalc()in the low-level API. Notably this excludes the actual evaluation ofcalc()expressions. Blitz and Servo can both use Stylo for this.A built-in implementation of
calc()expressions in Taffy is considered desirable, but is left as a follow-up.Context
Calcval #225Notes
The performance impact discussed in #769 also applies to this PR, but there appears to be no additional performance impact compared with #769.
Feedback wanted