3 ms·
Unfortunately, you would still have the problem of seemingly-arbitrarily needing `:is` in some cases, when the & isn't at the start of a declaration. So e.g.
by Vinnl 4y ago
Unfortunately, you would still have the problem of seemingly-arbitrarily needing `:is` in some cases, when the & isn't at the start of a declaration.
So e.g.
.someClass {
:is(a) > & {
font-weight: 700;
}
}
instead of the more intuitive (but impossible)
.someClass {
a > & {
font-weight: 700;
}
}
- int_19h 4y agoThey need to just bite the bullet and devise something other than & to clearly distinguish nesting.
- Vinnl 4y agoIt's not the & that's the problem, it's the selectors that start with a regular letter or dash (i.e. `a` in my example above).
- int_19h 4y agoThe point is that if & cannot consistently serve as a marker, then it shouldn't be one. Just add a different piece of syntax that always starts a nested rule and clearly disambiguates it and retain & solely to designate the parent.
- Vinnl 4y agoAh, so you're calling on people to vote for option 4 or 5?