On Thursday, November 24, 2011, Lachlan Hunt
wrote:
> On 2011-11-24 00:52, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sean Hogan
wrote:
>>>
>>> The alternative option (find / findAll / matches can accept explicit
>>> :scope, but will otherwise imply :scope) seems to be where all th
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>> > * Is :scope always implied if it begins with an explicit combinator
>> > other
>> > than descendant, even if :scope is used elsewhere?
>> > find(">div :scope");
>> > find("+div :scope");
>> > find("~div :scope");
>>
>> Yes.
>
> I think I
Yehuda Katz
(ph) 718.877.1325
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 6:52 AM, Tab Atkins Jr. wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Lachlan Hunt
> wrote:
> > On 2011-11-24 00:52, Yehuda Katz wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sean Hogan
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> The alternative option (find
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 12:50 AM, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
> On 2011-11-24 00:52, Yehuda Katz wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sean Hogan
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> The alternative option (find / findAll / matches can accept explicit
>>> :scope, but will otherwise imply :scope) seems to be where a
On 2011-11-24 00:52, Yehuda Katz wrote:
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:38 PM, Sean Hogan wrote:
The alternative option (find / findAll / matches can accept explicit
:scope, but will otherwise imply :scope) seems to be where all the
ambiguity lies.
What exact cases are ambiguous with "find/findAll/