Your solution still doesn't work.

@zdroid Perhaps you could give a little more clue about why you believe it's not working. I'm using the patch with success.

It produces incorrect syntax. .scale(100, 5) produces ... scale(100 5)
instead of ... scale(100, 5).

2014-02-01 rubenstolk [email protected]:

@zdroid https://github.com/ZDroid Perhaps you could give a little more
clue about why you believe it's not working. I'm using the patch with
success.

You're right. Will fix it.

Definitely working now, thanks @zdroid, that ... notation was anyways a bad idea which I was tempted to use since it was already in code.

Someone advice me if this notation could be preferred over current code:

.scale(@ratioX, @ratioY) {
  -webkit-transform: scale(@ratioX, @ratioY);
      -ms-transform: scale(@ratioX, @ratioY); // IE9 only
          transform: scale(@ratioX, @ratioY);
}
.scale(@ratio) {
  .scale(@ratio, @ratio);
}
.scaleX(@ratio) {
  .scale(@ratio, 1);
}
.scaleY(@ratio) {
  .scale(1, @ratio);
}

In that case we should do the same for rotate etc.

scale, scaleX and scaleY should be good idea.

2014-02-01 rubenstolk [email protected]:

Someone advice me if this notation could be preferred over current code:

.scale(@ratioX, @ratioY) {
-webkit-transform: scale(@ratioX, @ratioY);
-ms-transform: scale(@ratioX, @ratioY); // IE9 only
transform: scale(@ratioX, @ratioY);
}
.scale(@ratio) {
.scale(@ratio, @ratio);
}
.scaleX(@ratio) {
.scale(@ratio, 1);
}
.scaleY(@ratio) {
.scale(1, @ratio);
}

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHubhttps://github.com//pull/12459#issuecomment-33869458
.

Zlatan Vasović - ZDroid

Yes, but do we want scaleX and scaleY to translate to native CSS scaleX and scaleY (current code), resulting in longer and less maintainable LESS-code, or the suggestion that I gave above. Not sure what the guidelines are...

/cc @mdo

Squash to one commit please and we can merge.

@mdo done. Please do still advice if we should rather follow the notation that I suggested a few comments up...