Skip to content
This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 6, 2021. It is now read-only.

Conversation

@thecrypticace
Copy link
Collaborator

Builds on #150 (so lets get that merged first and then I'll rebase this)

Closes #148

Copy link
Member

@RobinMalfait RobinMalfait left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hey! Thank you for your PR!
Much appreciated! 🙏

Little nitpick, but apart from that, looks correct to me, thanks!


We'll wait for the other PR to be merged first (#150)

thecrypticace and others added 2 commits March 24, 2021 09:10
We achieve this by:
1. handling applies on a per-parent basis
2. Splitting @apply a b c into @apply a; @apply b; @apply c; (in that order) and then sorting all applies in a given node
Co-authored-by: Robin Malfait <malfait.robin@gmail.com>
@adamwathan adamwathan force-pushed the fix/multiple-apply-responsive branch from c4295a9 to 52e9976 Compare March 24, 2021 13:10
@adamwathan adamwathan merged commit d55078d into main Mar 24, 2021
@adamwathan adamwathan deleted the fix/multiple-apply-responsive branch March 24, 2021 13:15
Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Wrong output order when using multiple @apply rules

4 participants