Re: ruby mode additional packages

[Grant Shangreaux]

Dmitry Gutov <dgutov@yandex.ru> writes:

> Hi!
>
> 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.

>> 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.

> If you want to reimplement the parts written by people without
> copyright assignment, be my guest, I guess. Maybe to get it in ELPA,
> or maybe into Emacs proper.
>
> But according to my observations, people have asked for the reverse:
> to have the latest version of ruby-mode in some ELPA archive, to be
> able to use it from any Emacs release.
>
> So from where I'm sitting, having inf-ruby in NonGNU ELPA would solve
> 99% of everyone's needs.

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 :) ). 

>> 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.

thank you!

-- 
Tokṡa ake
Grant Shangreaux