- From: Griffork via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2022 08:25:30 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
@lubomirblazekcz please enlighten to me (css noob) why your proposal would work? Why does this: ```css .a { & .b { @nest :not(.c)& { color: red } } } ``` become: ```css .a:not(.c) .b { color: red } ``` and not: ```css :not(.c).a .b { color: red } ``` Is it because the second example is not valid css? Does the & behave differently based on whether or not the css is valid? What if I do this: ```css .a { & .b { @nest .fail& { color: red } } } ``` does that become: ```css .a.fail .b { color: red } ``` or (what I'd expect): ```css .fail.a .b { color: red } ``` If it becomes `.fail.a .b` in the second example but `:not(.c).a .b` in the first example, is that then a property of pseudo selectors to modify how & works? Also weirdly in my mind I'd expect if `:not(.c)&` was to be appended to anything in a selector with multiple parts, i'd naively expect it to be appended to every part, not arbitrarily the first one (like so: `.a:not(.c) .b:not(.c)`). Reminder that I'm a css noob. As I said before, I'm not a fan of & working differently in different scenarios, but since you also seem happy with the `&<something>` syntax I think you already understand where I'm coming from. -- GitHub Notification of comment by Griffork Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6977#issuecomment-1026584594 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 1 February 2022 08:25:32 UTC