The argument seems to be that a,b=c<d,e>g could be misplaced based on whether this is a generic type or a pair of comparisons.

They then go on to say that they needed to revisit the design in the square brackets case to insert the keyword “type” whenever generics were used, which means this example would presumably become c<type d, type e> which resolves the ambiguity.

It seems more likely it was an issue discovered atbut not revisited when the issue was fixed, and now inertia is keeping it as is.