Hi - I'm also for Russel's proposal to allow extra trailing commas.
Does anybody object to the proposal? Cheers, -michael On 9/6/16, 2:17 PM, "David G. Wonnacott" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >The trailing-comma feature is one of the (relatively few) things I really >like about Python, and I'd be happy to see it added to Chapel. In >particular, when debugging, I sometimes like to be able to have a list of >complex objects, with a comma at the end of > each line, and a final ")" on a line by itself. I can then "comment out" >various elements without having to worry about having commented out the >last element and thus needing to remove a trailing "," on the most recent >non-comment line. > >So, if anyone is counting responses for or against, count me as "for" >this. > >Dave W > >On 09/06/2016 01:55 PM, Russel Winder wrote: > > >I raised this point elsewhere and it was suggested I bring it here with >a view to there being a change in the Chapel parser. > >Some language treat a trailing comma in a list or tuple literal as not >a problem. Many language, including currently Chapel, treat this as an >error. For many this is a trivial non-issue. For some, people who >construct tables of data for things like tests or application >configuration, it becomes a real irritant. > >As with other language that have tuple literals Chapel requires a >trailing comma in a tuple literal of one element: > >(1,) > >completely understandable, indeed required. However Chapel as many >other language does not allow a trailing literal in any other >situation: so > >(1, 2,) > >would be an error. This is a trivial point in many ways, but leads to >huge irritations. If only this were allowed many hors of pain and >anguish would be averted. Witness Python and other languages that allow >the redundant trailing comma: > >[] >[1], [1,] >[1, 2], [1, 2,] > >() >(1,) >(1, 2), (1, 2,) > >are all legal in language allowing trailing redundant comma. In >languages that do not allow this, literal data manipulation become a >right royal pain in the proverbials. > >Personally I see no reason at all for not allowing this element of >redundancy. I believe the Chapel grammar should be amended to allow >this. > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- >---- > > >_______________________________________________ >Chapel-users mailing list >[email protected]https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/list >info/chapel-users > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Chapel-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-users
