clint-lawrence

@mikenerone I saw you comment here and have added a reference to IPython in the docs on #2972 https://github.com/python-trio/trio/blob/2551d049061126b1998c9b93d60f2b481864bf31/docs/source/reference-core.rst#L1951

> I am in favor of accepting something like this. As the github bot has noted, please add type hints. Yes, I have start on that. Just a few issues...

> > I like this pull request a lot more than #2407 > > to save me+others some time comparing them if you already have - why? What's the difference...

I think all the previous feedback has been addressed. Please let me know if you need anything else for this to be merged.

> However, I don't really like the behavior of unconditionally `await`ing the result of the thing in the prompt. Is this really necessary? Or can we use some `inspect` function...

I've simplified the logic a little with the suggestion from @A5rocks and I think the should be good now.

Hello Stranger! Thanks for having a crack. I really should have created an issue here when I started throwing these ideas around a week or so ago. Over the weekend...

> For your final point, The sequencer is already globally accessible through the RESOURCES["SEQUENCER"]. > I can see removing global access to in preference to injecting it into the test...

@pazzarpj would be great to get your thoughts on issue #127. I think with your 5th proposal above might be a good overall approach.

> Black formatting errors raised in [psf/black#1708](https://github.com/psf/black/issues/1708) @pazzarpj I just pinned the version of black on CI to work around this. If you continue on this PR you can grab...