On Feb 5, 2014, at 3:52 PM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > My current thought on this would be "->" or "=>", because the combinator is a concept similar to mapping an element to a set of elements (if you read from left to right, like web authors do): > > #some-element -> shadow-tree -> .some-elements { ... } > #some-element -> shadow-full-tree -> .some-elements { ... } > > if we want to retroactively express current combinators: > > #some-element -> descendants -> .some-elements { ... } // ( ) > #some-element -> children -> .some-elements { ... } // (>) > #some-element -> next-sibling -> .some-elements { ... } // (+) > #some-element -> next-siblings -> .some-elements { ... } // (~) > > Best regards, > François > > > > ________________________________________________________ > [off-topic-post-scriptum] > > because some of us like being crazy, we could even allow the reverse combinator syntax like in > > .some-elements { > color: blue; > & <- next-sibling <- .some-other-elements { > color: red; > } > & -> next-sibling -> .some-different-elements { > color: green; > } > } > > aka > > .some-elements { color: blue } > .some-other-elements + .some-elements { color: red } > .some-elements + .some-different-elements { color: green } This looks more like two -> combinators with a token in between. I think it looks kind of nice in simple cases but the two arrow and extra spaces add 6 additional characters to each combinator name, which gets old once you nest; and once you start nesting you could get something like: article -> shadow -> heading -> descendants -> p… Where it’s getting a bit harder to spot the combinator names from the element names vs. article ^shadow heading ^descendants p …which is admittedly more compact and effectively disambiguates combinators from the things they apply to fairly well.Received on Thursday, 6 February 2014 00:16:21 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:39 UTC