Then maybe we should change it to avoid them somehow? Actually it would be quite handy to create animations. *Anton Nemtsev* Frontend Developer +38 050 277 38 82 <+380502773882> anton.nemtsev@vaimo.com [image: Vaimo Logo] <http://www.vaimo.com/> *Vaimo* Zhylianska str. 31 Kiev, Ukraine +38 044 364 19 66 <+380443641966> | www.vaimo.com *We are hiring* - Help us grow! vaimo.com/careers <http://www.vaimo.com/careers/> *Follow us:* [image: Vaimo Facebook] <http://www.facebook.com/VaimoGlobal> [image: Vaimo Twitter] <https://twitter.com/vaimoglobal> [image: Vaimo LinkedIn] <http://www.linkedin.com/company/2510355> On 1 December 2016 at 10:50, Daniel Glazman < daniel.glazman@disruptive-innovations.com> wrote: > On 01/12/2016 09:07, Alexander Shpack wrote: > > > I thought about it one more time... No, we can't remove "partial" > > parameter. We have 3 states and :not(:in-view(all)) don't cover partial > > statement, because it includes both statements: partial and none. > > Well. Again, this is what :not() is for. Your :in-view(partial) is > exactly :not(:in-view(all)):not(:in-view(none)). > > Anyway, I don't think your proposal is doable because of infinite loops. > > </Daniel> > >
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2016 12:55:51 UTC