d-Pixie

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by d-Pixie 11y ago

   Not yet :)
2. 2.▲
   by d-Pixie 11y ago

   1. Sure, but just since finite input can be handled quickly doesn't mean it's not turing complete. A million cell tape for the Rule 110 automaton in any language will probably execute in milliseconds, if at all optimised... There
3. 3.▲
   by d-Pixie 11y ago

   I completely agree that it's not a good thing. I know that the browser maintainers also see the increasing complexity of CSS as a bad thing. That's why I was so sceptical to it from the start ...
4. 4.▲
   by d-Pixie 11y ago

   Barring IE, that requires the old syntax and or had bugs, support for the standard flexbox is now in every modern browser: http://caniuse.com/#feat=flexbox Maybe it's time to stop blaming the standard and start blaming
5. 5.▲
   by d-Pixie 11y ago

   What relevant CSS rule can't be applied to this? We know our previous context and everything before which is what CSS acts on anyway, no lookahead rules in CSS :) And yes, there could come an yet as to unknown element later that change
6. 6.▲
   by d-Pixie 11y ago

   Sure, but the work that the entire internet based the claim on until now was in fact not a proof at all. Which is the main point, for me at least. Isn't it strange that Wikipedia, some CS professors and many, many other places didn&#x2