Alternately allow `nil` as a lvalue that acts as the bit bucket.
While I'd appreciate something like that can we please keep some focus on the original proposal? And you know the rule, make a proposal, provide a patch.
This was just a very simply lexical relaxation, it doesn't even the warrant "extension", where the patch consists of just one line and albeit it happens less frequently than the trailing comma in tables it still bites some people as there has been provided some anecdotal evidence beside me in this conversation (thanks).
There is no implicit nil by lexical void in Lua, so there is no ambiguity and even if there is ever going to be, the solution would be simple as been explained by hisham to define lexical voids to exist only before commas and locial as one comma creates one void and not two.
