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 wrote: > Marco Antoniotti 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 > -- Marco Antoniotti, Associate Professor tel. +39 - 02 64 48 79 01 DISCo, Università Milano Bicocca U14 2043 http://dcb.disco.unimib.it Viale Sarca 336 http://cdac2021.lakecomoschool.org I-20126 Milan (MI) ITALY