Hacker News Reader

Comment by timmyd | Hacker News Reader

`Whilst this is a very timid example, it does help illustrate how a lot of preprocessors’ built in ‘helpful’ aspects actually go against our ideals; .nav li a{} could (and should) just be .nav a{}.`

Not if .nav li a{} and .nav a{} are specifically meant to be differing nests. They could but might not 'should'

View on HN

> Not if .nav li a{} and .nav a{} are specifically meant to be differing nests.

But in the example they aren’t differing nests; if you change your example then obviously it isn’t correct any more.

If you're truly reusing the example from above, shouldn't it be:

  .nav {
    li {}
    a {}
  }

If that's not the case, why is your first "nested" pure CSS example this:

  .nav a {}

instead of

  .nav li a {}

Because `.nav li a{}` is overly specific; that’s my whole point.

EDIT Hold on, I think I get you… My example was an example of someone writing something incorrectly. An example of it being written correctly would indeed be:

    .nav{
        li{}
        a{}
    }

Cool, we're on the same page. =)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com