But the second interpretation only makes sense if the last item somehow deserves special treatment (over, say, the second-to-last item). Otherwise, you should similarly argue that the previous second-to-last item should also show up in the changes as it has now turned into the third-to-last item. (So maybe every item in the list should be preceded by as many spaces as are items before it and succeeded by as many commas as are items following it. Then, every change to the list will be a diff of the entire list.)

    first item,,,
     second item,,
      third item,
       fourth item

> But the second interpretation only makes sense if the last item somehow deserves special treatment (over, say, the second-to-last item).

There do exist reasons why this can make sense:

- In an Algebraic Data Type implementation of a non-empty list, the last symbol is a different type constructor than the one to append an item to the front of an existing non-empty list (similarly how for an Algebraic Data Type implementation of an arbitrary list, the type constructor for an initial empty list is "special").

- In a single-linked list implementation, sometimes (depending on the implementation) the terminal element of the list is handled differently.

---

By the way: at work, because adding parameters at the beginning of a (parameter) list of a function is "special" (because in the code for many functions the first parameters serve a very special purpose), but adding some additional parameter at the end is not, we commonly use parameter lists formatted like

    'foo'
  , 'bar1'
  , 'bar2'
  , 'blub'