Re: Extending emacs convention for first line

[Stefan Monnier]

>> I don't have a strong opinion on this, but I'll note that I hope we can
>> get rid of the `-*- lexical-binding: t -*-` cookie in the not too
>> distant future.
>>
>> I think we're slowly working our way up to the point where we can change
>> the default to t such that the cookie will be needed only (in the form
>> `-*- lexical-binding: nil -*-`) for those files still using the old
>> dynbound dialect of ELisp.
>>
> The suggestion is more focused on allowing descriptions longer
> than a single line.  And which would avoid us long lines.

My note above was only tangentially related to your suggestion, indeed.

W.r.t the length of the description, the limited length is (up to
a point) a *feature*, since that description can appear in various other
places (e.g. the https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/ web page) where an overly
long description would be inconvenient.

So, I definitely don't want to allow multi-line descriptions here.
There's already the `Commentary:` section for a longer description.
So I only see two cases where the current convention is problematic:

- when the -*- lexical-binding: t -*- cookie pushes the line length
  beyond 80 columns.
- when the filename is itself so long that even with a short description
  the line length beyond 80 columns.

As I mention in my remark, I hope the first problem is transitory (tho
it'll still be with us for a few more years).


        Stefan


PS: for some packages, the `Commentary:` can be too long for some uses,
e.g. release announcements for GNU ELPA packages don't include the
commentary.  So maybe we could introduce a new convention for a "short
multi-line description" (something like 4-5 lines, we could call it
"Summary" or "Abstract", maybe), in addition to the short single-line
description.  It could be used in release announcements, or appear in
https://elpa.gnu.org/packages/ when you hover over a package description
(or appear when you click something to "unfold" the description,
maybe?).