On May 20, 2013, at 7:02 AM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: >>> ::region(>strong) { >>> abc: def; >>> abc: def; >>> @where :hover { >>> abc: def; >>> abc: def; >>> } >>> } >> >> I take this to mean '::region(>strong) :hover'. But how to do the embedding for '::region(>strong):hover' or '::region(>strong :hover)' or '::region(>strong:hover)'? The @rule didn't suffer this lack of clarity. > > You're right. I noted this issue before, but didn't notice it impaired nesting. > > So, if we want a pseudo element and justify this with nesting possibilities, we will need a pseudo-element without the parentheses (ie: a combinator-like pseudo-element), or we should use a true combinator or an at-rule instead. > > > The advantage of the combinator is that you can use both the independent and grouped syntaxes: > > my-region ... region-content {} > my-region ... region-content-2 {} > > and > > my-region { > @then ... region-content {} > @then ... region-content-2 {} > } > > and > > my-region { > @then { > region-content {} > region-content-2 {} > } > } > > while with @region you are forced to use the second alternative > > @region my-region { > :scope region-content {} > :scope region-content-2 {} > } > > (note that it may be seen as an advantage by some) I agree that the combinator approach looks and works better than the pseudo-element approach. But it seems a bit overkill to create a whole new combinator, just for use with regions only. Also, of the examples you gave, the @region version had the best combination of compactness (once you remove the unnecessary ':scope' parts) and DRY-ness. And to my eye is the clearest.Received on Monday, 20 May 2013 16:10:00 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Monday, 23 January 2023 02:14:28 UTC