The existence of the following-sibling combinator, +, begs the question: why doesn't a previous-sibling combinator exist? I can't imagine that it's any harder to implement, and I can't come up with any semantic objection - in fact, the lack of symmetry would be a semantic argument for it. If the above seems at all reasonable, the symbol "-" would make sense for the job. Clive ChanReceived on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 09:50:11 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC