On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 9:56 AM, François REMY <francois.remy.dev@outlook.com> wrote: > ± A "generator of a disjunction" makes :matches() a special syntax form, not a > ± real pseudo-class. That would be somewhat easier, but it would also be > ± weird. Dunno if I wanna go down that road. > > Also, it's not a disjunction. If it was, the following two would be equivalent: > > a:matches(.b c, .d e) > a.b c, a.d e > > If I understood the situation correctly, they are not. No, it's more complicated than that. Let's rephrase in explicit AND/OR terms, to make it clear how it's in DNF: (a AND .b c) OR (a AND .d e) It's a disjunction of conjunctions. ~TJReceived on Wednesday, 26 November 2014 18:00:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:48 UTC