<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><blockquote type="cite" class="" style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;"><div class=""><div class="" style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div class="">Would you then recommend removing trailing comma support for collections on the same principle?</div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>me too — so, for the review-part: -0.5, no trailing commas (it's not a full -1 as long as I'm not forced to add those trailing commas)<div class="">I don't think they are convenient, and even if that is wrong: The convenience-argument could be used to cripple the language (skipping closing parens could be convenient, using "l" and "v" instead of "let" & "var" could be convenient, inferring the return-type of methods could be convenient... and possibly hundreds of small changes in the syntax as well).</div><div class="">The idea of using newlines as separators (making "," obsolete, like ";" in other situations) imho is much nicer and would address the same issues that this proposal tries to improve.</div></body></html>