That's as bad as using regular expressions: now you have TWO problems.

Why do you seem to think you've cleverly solved the problem, when you've just moved the problem somewhere else just as bad, by blithely messing with the standard formatting conventions universally used by most human written languages and programming languages in the world?

Programming languages borrow commas from human written languages, and no human written languages have leading commas. And moving the problem to the beginning on the list because you sometimes add things to the end ignores the fact that that also causes problems with READING the code as well as writing it, and you READ code much more often than you WRITE it.

That's not a solution at all, and there's nothing clever about it. You've just pushed the problem to the beginning of the list, and now your code is also butt-ugly with totally non-standard formatting, which sane people don't recognize and editors and IDEs and linters don't support.

I agree with cnity that it's too clever by half, and I'm in the camp (along with Guido van Rossum and his point that "Language Design Is Not Just Solving Puzzles" [1] [2]) that's not impressed by showboating displays of pointlessly creative cleverness and Rube-Goldbergeesque hacks that makes things even worse.

Of course it's not as bad as tezza's clever by a third suggestion to add a confusing throw-away verbose noisy arbitrarily named pad element at the beginning, that actually forces the SQL database to do more work and send more useless data. Now you have three or more problems. The last thing we need is MORE CODE and network traffic contributing to complexity and climate change. I would fire and forget any developer who tried to pull that stunt.

[1] https://www.artima.com/weblogs/viewpost.jsp?thread=147358

All Things Pythonic: Language Design Is Not Just Solving Puzzles. By Guido van van Rossum, February 10, 2006.

Summary: An incident on python-dev today made me appreciate (again) that there's more to language design than puzzle-solving. A ramble on the nature of Pythonicity, culminating in a comparison of language design to user interface design.

[...] The unspoken, right brain constraint here is that the complexity introduced by a solution to a design problem must be somehow proportional to the problem's importance. In my mind, the inability of lambda to contain a print statement or a while-loop etc. is only a minor flaw; after all instead of a lambda you can just use a named function nested in the current scope.

[...] And there's the rub: there's no way to make a Rube Goldberg language feature appear simple. Features of a programming language, whether syntactic or semantic, are all part of the language's user interface. And a user interface can handle only so much complexity or it becomes unusable.

[2] http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1298

The discussion is about multi-statement lambdas, but I don't want to discuss this specific issue. What's more interesting is the discussion of language as a user interface (an interface to what, you might ask), the underlying assumption that languages have character (e.g., Pythonicity), and the integrated view of semantics and syntax of language constructs when thinking about language usability.