Re: QSA, the problem with ":scope", and naming

Yeah, I have to agree with the list here.  If you allow one its unintuitive
to not allow it the same way in a group.  The more exceptions and complexity
you add, the harder it is for someone to learn.

 On Oct 25, 2011 10:16 PM, "Bjoern Hoehrmann" <derhoermi@gmx.net> wrote:

> * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Ojan Vafai <ojan@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Bjoern Hoehrmann <derhoermi@gmx.net>
> wrote:
> >>> * Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> >>> >Did you not understand my example?  el.find("+ foo, + bar") feels
> >>> >really weird and I don't like it.  I'm okay with a single selector
> >>> >starting with a combinator, like el.find("+ foo"), but not a selector
> >>> >list.
> >>>
> >>> Allowing "+ foo" but not "+ foo, + bar" would be "really weird".
> >>
> >> Tab, what specifically is weird about el.find("+ foo, + bar")?
> >
> >Seeing a combinator immediately after a comma just seems weird to me.
>
> A "list of abbreviated selectors" is a more intuitive concept than "a
> list of selectors where the first and only the first selector may be
> abbreviated". List of <type> versus special case and arbitrary limit.
> If one abbreviated selector isn't weird, then two shouldn't be either
> if two selectors aren't weird on their own.
> --
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
> Am Badedeich 7 · Telefon: +49(0)160/4415681 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
> 25899 Dagebüll · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
>
>