Re: ruby mode additional packages

[Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru>]

On 08.07.2022 06:17, Grant Shangreaux wrote:

>> There's nothing barring inf-ruby from being featured in NonGNU
>> ELPA. Now that you have voiced the question, we can get it added.
>>
> 
> oh great! i have simply taken for granted all these years that inf-ruby
> was "part of Emacs", but only recently have i become aware of the
> distinctions between the various package archives.

I've added it to NonGNU ELPA now. Successfully, I hope.

>>> in addition to that, i started trying to make my own inferior ruby based
>>> off of comint-mode, and while its very basic right now, it does
>>> work. would there be any desire to add a FSF assigned new version of
>>> inferior ruby to ELPA or Emacs proper?
> 
>> I don't know, I feel like most of the stuff in inf-ruby is fairly
>> essential (if I do say so myself, having written or re-written a
>> significant part of it).
> 
> i'm certain it is :) i've perused the package and i definitely had not
> considered support for multiple implementations across many versions of
> Ruby, IRB, Pry etc. i realized the issue i'd been having recently was
> actually an IRB problem and i could not blindly rely on --inf-ruby-mode
> as a flag.

Yeah. I don't think the --inf-ruby-mode flag has worked well enough for 
a while.

> yeah this is interesting to think about. i've been attempting to
> approach Emacs again as a beginner, and since myself and my colleagues
> primarily work with Ruby, that has been one of my focuses when working
> on a configuration. to simplify things, i wanted to rely on what a new
> user would get "out of the box" with Emacs 28. having ruby-mode baked in
> felt like a Good Thing. needing a package just to get basic language
> support would feel bad, especially when Ruby and Emacs have such a
> history together. i think i was a bit surprised that inf-ruby was not
> included, since it feels like a natural extension of ruby-mode
> 
> but you're absolutely right, getting inf-ruby in NonGNU ELPA /would/
> solve 99% of everyone's needs (including mine :) ).

Cool. To be sure, help improving inf-ruby is always welcome. Especially 
from someone who has already tinkered with Comint and IRB.

There are certainly bugs lurking there that could use rooting out.

>>> i do have my FSF paperwork in order, and i'd love to contribute what i
>>> can. since i'm in ruby land most often i thought i would ask here to see
>>> where the effort would best be placed. thank you!
>>
>> I personally think the effort is best placed improving the existing
>> packages.
>>
>> Not to discourage you from writing ones from scratch, though. That can
>> be fun and useful too.
> 
> i agree. while i was having some fun digging into comint-mode and IRB,
> there is a lot of effort in inf-ruby i would rather continue
> supporting. i do have a romantic notion about getting it into ELPA and
> Emacs proper, but your point about people asking for a package version
> of ruby-mode feels more practical. bringing inf-ruby to NonGNU ELPA
> feels like the right step, and if there is desire to get it assigned to
> the FSF someday and into ELPA, i'd be happy to help.

It doesn't have to be either/or.

My preference would be to focus on improving the existing functionality, 
but if you like to continue the rewrite, it's a solid direction, too.