On Feb 3, 2007, at 6:35 AM, Douglas Philips wrote:
Well, if we're going to bring personal points of view in, it highly
pisses me off that in a construct such as:
( expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
expr ,
)
I have to be vigilant to remove that trailing comma when it is in
_no way_ ambiguous.
How about instead writing
( expr
, expr
, expr
, expr
, expr
)
The only extra work is when inserting an element at the beginning,
but you have the same problem in your example.
/ Ulf
_______________________________________________
Haskell-prime mailing list
Haskell-prime@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime
