- From: Lea Verou via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 14:09:33 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
My comment was in #6977 was: > First, I have to say I keep stumbling on use cases for this. Things like: > > ```css > .container { > & .widget { > .container.selected & { > /* FAIL, gets rewritten to .container.selected .container .widget, > not .container.selected .widget */ > } > } > } > ``` > > Also, I agree my proposal in [#6330 (comment)](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6330#issuecomment-851615137) is overkill. Also, it introduces a CSS property that is not actually applied on any elements, but is just used to evaluate syntax. Yikes. > > Instead, I think we should go for a simpler solution, with predefined names for going up 1, 2, 3, ... levels. Perhaps `&1`, `&2`, `&3` etc. Then the example above would become: > > ```css > .container { > & .widget { > &1.selected & { > /* Gets rewritten to .container.selected .widget */ > } > } > } > ``` > > Is `&1` cryptic? Yes. But it isn't more cryptic than `&` itself, and it kinda reminds me of `$1`, `$2` etc in JS string replacement. It was upvoted by @argyleink and @romainmenke @lubomirblazekcz . If we are broadening this issue to include suggestions like these, we should probably edit the title to reflect this. -- GitHub Notification of comment by LeaVerou Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/6330#issuecomment-1378808822 using your GitHub account -- Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Wednesday, 11 January 2023 14:09:35 UTC