Clive Chan skrev: > 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 Chan > The symbol could be misinterpreted as a range specifier. At least by humans, I have no clue if the actual syntax has any risk of confusion.Received on Tuesday, 3 February 2015 16:37:48 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:08:51 UTC