Speaking from the historical perspective, I don't think there's any inherent reason to not support trailing commas. We didn't originally support them because it seemed "sloppy", but then later added them for the 1-tuple case out of necessity. Though I think we batted it around, we didn't add them to other cases at that time to minimize the delta more than anything.
Personally, I don't feel strongly one way or the other on this one and will go with the majority. If anybody had qualms, I'd be curious to hear them (as well as additional +1's for the proposal). -Brad On Tue, 6 Sep 2016, Michael Ferguson wrote: > 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 > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Chapel-users mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/chapel-users
