- From: Oriol Brufau via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Jun 2021 17:28:35 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
> as an equivalent to this? `.foo .qux.active .bar .baz {}`
Well, technically I think it would be like `.foo .qux.active :is(.foo .bar .baz) {}`. `&` matches the elements that match the parent selector. It doesn't directly insert a selector into another, you may need `:is()` if there are combinators.
> I’m not sure about the `&(foo)` syntax though
`&(foo)` was just some random syntax different than `&foo` which has another meaning. Can be something else.
> I believe the second & is actually not needed as (.foo) already makes it clear where the :focus belongs?
But it's not clear what's the relationship with `.baz`.
> shouldn’t this then work with direct nesting without `@nest`?
Probably, if it's at the beginning, I guess.
--
GitHub Notification of comment by Loirooriol
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6330#issuecomment-852309437 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 1 June 2021 17:28:51 UTC