================
@@ -122,10 +122,22 @@ code.line:has(.bb-select):before {
font-size: x-small;
flex-grow: 1;
}
-.value summary {
+.value > summary {
background-color: #ace;
display: flex;
justify-content: space-between;
+ cursor: pointer;
+}
+.value > summary::before {
+ content: '►';
+ margin-right: 0.5em;
+ font-size: 0.9em;
+}
+.value[open] > summary::before {
+ content: '▼';
+}
+.value > summary > .location {
----------------
martinboehme wrote:
True, it doesn't solve a problem ("space" would work just as well), but as the
`.location` is always a direct child of the `<summary>`, it seemed more
specific to do it this way.
Is "descendant", rather than "child", considered to be the default in CSS? The
former is syntactically shorter, but "child" is arguably the simpler concept.
Or is "child" problematic because it makes the CSS more brittle (i.e. less
resilient in the fact of changes to the HTML)?
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/67431
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
