Supporting option for dart-sass ? ( or drop node-sass as dependency )

[fsubal]

Maybe it could be solved by making a fork (since this package is **node-sass-**asset-functions )

---

Some people are now using dart-sass (or sass ) instead of node-sass, because of the painfulness caused by the native extension :(

Like sass-loader made itself sass-implementation-agnostic, it would be great to make node-sass-asset-functions also implementation-agnostic.

I found that node-sass-asset-functions itself runs well with sass, but even when I don't need node-sass as dependency, install node-sass-asset-functions forces my machine to rebuild node-sass.

How it should be like?

Taking sass module as a parameter

assetFunctions({
    ....
    implementation: require('node-sass') // or require('sass')
})

// or even...
assetFunctionsFor(require('node-sass'))({
    ....
})

Then drop node-sass from dependencies, and it allows users to avoid forced rebuilding node-sass.

[koenpunt]

This maybe can be achieved by making node-sass an optional dependency.

[fsubal]

Hmm.. as far as I examined, optionalDependency seems like a way of "avoiding installation failure" ( like chokidar allows non-Mac user skip installing fsevents ), not something to skip installing even if it's possible.

In this case, I think, node-sass-asset-functions should not install both of sass and node-sass, which means sass and node-sass only appears in unit test as devDependencies ( every user must install explicitly sass or node-sass by themselves ). This is what sass-loader does.

One thing to concern is this would be a breaking change, for those who only installed node-sass-asset-functions without installing their own node-sass

[fsubal]

Maybe optional dependency is better, if you meant, that it should only skip installing when failed but auto-installation-via-dependency itself is required ( and want to avoid breaking change )