Re: [selectors] Previous-sibling combinator?

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.