bug#47775: First line length and GNU coding standards....

Yes, exactly.

I understand your reasoning and your decision. But let me note that it is the "tooling" that broke, in the mists of time, previous well established conventions.
Having said that, I would like Emacs to *also accept* the style I propose, not to mandate it.

In any case, I am just ranting, I know :) :) :)

All the best

Marco

On Wed, May 5, 2021 at 3:20 PM Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> wrote:

Marco Antoniotti <marco.antoniotti@unimib.it> writes:

> The issue is "buffer variables" vs "convention of 'name --- description'.
>
> TRT is to "fix" checkdoc to look for the 'name --- description' within the first (10)
> lines, AND/OR to revert to the old convention of having the '-*- ... -*-' line(s) within
> the first 10.
>
> Once that is done, the documentation can be amended accordingly, relaxing the
> mandate that the first line MUST start with ;;; foo --- bar. and no extra update in any
> files will be needed.

If I understand correctly, you want Emacs to recommend the following
style to start .el files:

;;; -*- Mode: Emacs-Lisp; lexical-binding: t; some-var-with-a-long-name: t -*-
;;; foo.el --- The foo pkg, which also happens to have description 79 col long.

This would break a lot of tooling that expects the first line to have
the package name (and description), so that's not a feasible change.

The local variable section is usually put at the end of the file, but
lexical-binding is special, in that it's not "really" a local variable,
but has other effects, and in that we're (at one point in the future)
going to remove all these cookies when we flip the defaults, and then
the first lines will be shorter than 79 characters again.

So I'm closing this bug report.

--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no

From:	Marco Antoniotti
Subject:	bug#47775: First line length and GNU coding standards....
Date:	Wed, 5 May 2021 15:40:37 +0200