- 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