Don't require ugly comma for structural extensions

[Simn]

typedef T1 = {
    > T2, // <--
    var x:String;
}

I don't think we need that comma for the parser.

[nadako]

random thought: what would maybe look cool asthetically in the long notation is extends T2 instead of >T2 :)

[back2dos]

How about we parse this as TExtend:

typedef T1 = T2 & {
  var x:String;
} & T3 & {
  var y:Int;
}```

This could be considered equivalent to:

```haxe
typedef T1 = {
  >T2, >T3,
  var x:String;
  var y:Int;
}

Beyond that point we would treat "base types" the same, i.e. it wouldn't work for classes or enums (at least not for now).

Or we could substitute TExtend by TIntersect(t:Array<ComplexType>) and have it work only for the cases when it currently works. Does that stand a chance as a haxe-evolution proposal?

[Simn]

HaxeFoundation/haxe-evolution#46

[back2dos]

Ah, well, ignore me then ;)