[css-grid] Shortcut syntax for repeat(M, 1fr)

[LeaVerou]

I’ve noticed myself often defining grids where all I want is a bunch of equally sized rows, columns, or both. I.e. things like:

grid-template: repeat(M, 1fr) / repeat(N, 1fr);

or in one direction:

grid-template: 20em 1fr / repeat(N, 1fr);

Look at the first syntax. Isn't that a bit clunky, just to say that I want a M×N grid?
Wouldn’t it be much more elegant to be able to say:

grid-template: M / N;

And AFAIK <integer> has no meaning in grid-template right now, so the syntax is up for grabs and can be combined with other units as necessary, e.g.

grid-template-columns: 10em 4; /* equivalent to grid-template-columns: 10em repeat(4, 1fr);  */

Though admittedly, when combined with other units, its meaning is not as obvious as when used by itself.

[FremyCompany]

I'm not sure why we should prefer 1fr over the other options here.

[FremyCompany]

Also I think this is very confusing because 0 is a valid length

[LeaVerou]

I'm not sure why we should prefer 1fr over the other options here.

...which are?

Also I think this is very confusing because 0 is a valid length

Not sure what you mean?

[FremyCompany]

I just don't think that 1fr is that one thing you really want to repeat (significantly more often than all the other things you can put in the repeat function).

In other words, creating a shortcut to easily repeat a fixed number of 1fr tracks seems like it fits your current specific use case, but I don't think it warrants the additional syntax because there is a lot of diversity in grid track sizing, and I don't think 1fr is even the majority of what people use in the repeat function.

---

More fundamentally, I don't think we want to get an <integer> to create tracks on its own because we already have grid: 0 / 0 which creates a grid with one track of 0px breadth in each direction

https://wptest.center/#/2x9sn4 (contrived example but I just wanted to show the syntax is valid)

[LeaVerou]

I just don't think that 1fr is that one thing you really want to repeat (significantly more often than all the other things you can put in the repeat function).

You don't think that "N equal sized rows/columns" is more common than other things?

In other words, creating a shortcut to easily repeat a fixed number of 1fr tracks seems like it fits your current specific use case,

I've been at this long enough to know not to suggest things that just fit my one particular case. I suggested this after stumbling on use cases that involved that several times, over the several months since I started using grid. In fact, every grid I've ever defined involved this in at least one direction.

More fundamentally, I don't think we want to get an to create tracks on its own because we already have grid: 0 / 0 which creates a grid with one track of 0px breadth in each direction

That’s actually a good argument. I wonder if we can define it as <integer> > 1 only. In that case there's no ambiguity.

[rachelandrew]

You don't think that "N equal sized rows/columns" is more common than other things?

I don't think so. I'm also concerned it would further lead people to believe that N fr == N equal sized, which isn't the case, it's really minmax(auto,1fr), equal sized would be minmax(0,1fr).

[mrego]

Also the default size for a track is auto (if grid-auto-columns|rows is not defined).
So maybe grid: 3 / 4; could be something like grid: repeat(3, auto) / repeat(4, auto).

[fantasai]

@LeaVerou based on the comments here, would you like to retract (close) the issue or raise it to the WG?

[LeaVerou]

It can repeat whatever you think would be most useful, 1fr was just a suggestion. minmax(auto, 1fr) or minmax(0, 1fr) would also be fine, even auto. My point was more about how it would be useful to have a <number> syntax as a shortcut for repeat(n, something). I don't know if this applies to others, but I always end up writing this by accident, being puzzled for a bit, then remembering I have to use repeat().

[fantasai]

That does not actually answer the question that I asked, but I'll interpret it as “please Agenda+”...

[Dan503]

I'm in favour of @LeaVerou I'm particularly interested in a shorter method of writing the repeat(X, minmax(0,1fr)) syntax.

There was another issue where people wanted 1fr to change to minmax(0,1fr) by default but was shut down due to it's potential to break sites. I think this could be an opportunity to remedy that.

I don't like the idea of it being a unitless value though. I'm thinking a rep unit would make sense (rep like repeat).

This is what I'm thinking:
2rep = repeat(2, minmax(0, 1fr))