-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 658
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[css-values-4] Clarify minimum calculation terms #8258
Comments
I re-open this issue because I think the current definition is inapplicable: if you have to support 32 levels of nesting, you have to support 33
|
Note those are minimums, not maximums. |
The title of this issue was incorrect, indeed. But I wonder if it should be a maximum, actually. Chrome and Firefox do not limit terms and my laptop froze for 5 minutes when I tested this |
How many terms did your test have? Maybe file issues in https://crbug.com and https://bugzil.la so that they add implementation limits. But I don't think the spec should impose maximums. |
I think it was a 6 or 7 digits number but I think it depends on the device resources. You are probably right: the limit should be defined on the browser side. It seems that I cannot write anything good for today, and I am not thrilled with the idea of crashing my laptop again, but I will file an issue tomorrow after carefull testing. |
While parsing |
Ok, thanks. I am fine with the current definition since it is an unimportant detail. I understand that the purpose is to avoid processing variadic math functions with each argument defined with 32*32**32 calc values. |
Considering the above requirement, does
calc(calc(1 + 2) + calc(1))
include 2, 3, or 5<calc-value>
s?I would be fine with closing this issue as "question answered" with 32
<calc-value>
terms without considering nesting, because that is what it means to me in the absence of any other precision. It would mean that there is 5 terms in my example.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: