Re: Supporting multiline Package-Requires header

[Phillip Lord]

Artur Malabarba <address@hidden> writes:

>> I raise possibility (3)
>>
>> Package-Requires: ((pkg-a "4.2.0) (pkg-b "1.0))
>>                   ((pkg-c "1.2))
>
> I thought about this one too, but I don't like it much because (as you
> mention) when someone messes up it will fail silently. Other than
> that, it's viable.
>
> Option also has the advantage that it's impossible to use by accident
> (since the whole thing has to be a single valid sexp).

Indeed. But it's only accidentally a sexp, in the sense that it's not
actually a sexp in the buffer -- it's a comment.

What is the failure behaviour of package.el for this at the moment? I
know Cask would fail nicely for this now (cause I complained about the
old error message!).

It's worth considering. In this case, you really do want the format
change to break everything that doesn't accept it!

Phil