Re: Extending emacs convention for first line

[Christopher Dimech <dimech@gmx.com>]

> Sent: Friday, October 21, 2022 at 6:06 AM
> From: "Stefan Monnier" <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>
> To: "Christopher Dimech" <dimech@gmx.com>
> Cc: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org
> Subject: Re: Extending emacs convention for first line
>
> >> 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?).

I do not see it would be necessary.  What can be done is take first paragraph
in the commentary.  And leave the single line brief intact.