Status: NEW → RESOLVED
Last Resolved: 12 years ago
Resolution: --- → DUPLICATE
It is not "incorrect", it is a valid extension allowed by ECMA-262 Edition 3 Chapter 16 (first bulleted item in the second unordered list). What's more, and why I'm commenting here: optional trailing comma will be normative in ECMA-262 Edition 4. Please don't file misguided bugs that demand spec-only syntax when the spec explicitly allows syntactic extensions. Edition 3 was wrong not to allow a trailing comma, and that's a bug I'm happy to report ECMA TG1 is fixing. /be
You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.