When you write
.a .b .c .d {
color: blue;
}
What you're saying is
Any element with class
d
that's nested beneath elements with classesa
,b
, andc
in that order should have blue text.
Then when you write
.e .f .g .h {
@extend .d;
}
what you're saying is
Any element with class
h
that's nested beneath elements with classese
,f
, andg
in that order should be styled as though it also has classd
.
The conjunction of these two statements implies
And element with class
h
that's nested beneath elements with classese
,f
, andg
in that order and beneath elements with classesa
,b
, andc
in that order should have blue text.
It's important to note that the two nesting requirements here don't have any particular order. Both of the following spans should have blue text:
<div class="a">
<div class="b">
<div class="c">
<div class="e">
<div class="f">
<div class="g">
<span class="h">Order 1</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="e">
<div class="f">
<div class="g">
<div class="a">
<div class="b">
<div class="c">
<span class="h">Order 1</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
The way to represent this in CSS is
.a .b .c .d, .a .b .c .e .f .g .h, .e .f .g .a .b .c .h {
x: y; }
Note that fully satisfying those semantics would produce exponential output, so Sass elides all but the two most likely permutations for space reasons.
I think we've done a bad job at actually explaining what extend does. Most examples are very simple and they build a mental model that is based on a flawed understanding. Discovering that they misunderstood is a painful process, obviously. I don't think the solution is to not use
@extend
. I think the solution is that we explain selector inheritance more clearly so that people stop developing the wrong expectation in the first place.