Dmitry Gutov

You can try step-debuggin through `inf-ruby-completions` to see where (and whether) it fails. To find out how to do that, the web search keyword is `edebug`. Or you can check...

Sounds good. Though I think you might get away with only using one or two of these statements (probably multiline; colorize and prompt mode -- might not be required).

How do you launch the rains console, BTW? Is it `M-x inf-ruby` or `M-x inf-ruby-console-auto`?

> IRB.conf[:USE_MULTILINE] = nil Perhaps ``` IRB.conf[:USE_MULTILINE] = false ``` would work? > and inf-ruby-console-auto Hm, okay. Which version of Rails are you using? Like a comment in `inf-ruby-console-rails`'s definition...

Perhaps there was some scenario where this doesn't work. I'd still like to hear about it. Maybe you didn't have `inf-ruby` at the latest version. Or maybe launching through `inf-ruby-console-rails`...

This could be problematic for users who `(setq ruby-use-smie nil)`. AFAIK there exists a fair number of those.

Because it won't run a new process. It can return an existing buffer, but since it was launched differently, that's unlikely to be what the caller expects. It's an implementation...

The implications are you might try to launch a new command, in a different environment, but if there is an existing inf-ruby buffer, it will simply be used, discarding the...

@bi1yeu The code in question seems to have its own session tracking. And even when there is an existing Ruby process running, just because org-babel didn't start it, it tries...

> Do you really think that nothing could be improved in inf-ruby? Maybe something could. In any case, someone should first try to implement correct behavior in Org. > In...