- From: Miriam Suzanne via GitHub <sysbot+gh@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 16:58:06 +0000
- To: public-css-archive@w3.org
I wonder if we should consider how this behavior relates to similar future features, e.g. [mixins](https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/9350), if we eventually go down that path. For example, an `@apply --x-mixin;` (or similar) rule could be treated as an extension of nesting – a placeholder for `& { <output of --x-mixin> }`. With mixins it is more clearly important that authors have an easy way to override the output by providing additional declarations after the mixin. In fact, most Sass 'best practices' have encouraged putting mixins _before_ declarations rather than after.
Clearly, nesting and mixins wouldn't _need_ to behave the same (they don't in Sass), but it seems like a useful comparison to consider?
--
GitHub Notification of comment by mirisuzanne
Please view or discuss this issue at https://github.com/w3c/csswg-drafts/issues/8738#issuecomment-1766816213 using your GitHub account
--
Sent via github-notify-ml as configured in https://github.com/w3c/github-notify-ml-config
Received on Tuesday, 17 October 2023 16:58:07 UTC