Think about @content in mixins

[KittyGiraudel]

According to you, what would be the best way to indicate that a mixin allows content to be passed in like so:

@mixin dummy {
  @content;
}

Description? @output? New annotation?

[FWeinb]

I think the usage of @content should be explained because its usage is just to versatile. So my vote is for Description.

[pascalduez]

I was tempted to say, let's had yet another annotation, but as Fabrice said, this is really generic stuff, so what would you want to pass to such an annotation ? That would always kind of be the same thing "You can wrap some declarations in"...

This makes me think of a new kind of annotation, with pre-defined value:
@content true or @content enabled

[valeriangalliat]

Or @content.

Or we can even look the mixin source to see if @content is used and automatically add the annotation.

[KittyGiraudel]

Now we're talking.

[FWeinb]

Searching for @content can be done in the resolve function of a new @content annotation. That would be awesome.

[KittyGiraudel]

Would be pretty neat. So do we all agree on adding a new @content annotation?

[FWeinb]

I think so. Basically we will have @content [Description] with the whole tag being optional.

[KittyGiraudel]

Alright. 1.9? 1.10?

[FWeinb]

I created a PR #229. Please review.