Boolean Algebra certainly. But wouldn't syntax make that easier? On 3/13/13 12:01 PM, "Henrik Andersson" <henke@henke37.cjb.net> wrote: >François REMY skriver: >> If I'm not mistaken, here is the kind of selectors Brian's proposal is >>aimed to : >> >> :not(#a) { >> selects all elements that are not #a >> } >> >> :and(#a *, #b *) { >> selects all elements that have both a #a and a #b parent >> } >> >> :or(#a, #b) { >> selects all elements that are either #a or #b >> } >> >> The other proposals (like anyOf, oneOf...) can be emulated using those >>three. Currently, we already have ':not()' (but I think it's somewhat >>limited to simple selectors) and it's already possible to emulate >>':or()' using commas. So "a :or(b,c) d" == "a b d, a c d". So what's >>really missing is the ':and' operator. >> >> (Brian if I'm wrong please correct me) >> >> > >Boolean algebra says that you can fake and using or. !(!X || !Y) == X && >Y It works in the other direction too. !(!X && !Y) == X || Y > >Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2013 19:09:41 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:27 UTC