Jack Kamm <jackk...@gmail.com> writes:

>>> Currently I lean towards a combination of #1 and #3, but am not sure,
>>> and happy to go with whatever you think is best.
>> We can also advice `ess-request-a-process' as a temporary workaround.
> My concern is that advising `ess-request-a-process' would cause
> maintenance burden on ob-R. It would require some knowledge about the
> ESS internals to maintain properly.

Not really. I only meant writing an advice iff our request is accepted
by ESS devs. Then, all we need is to advice the earlier versions of ESS
and remove the advice after the new ESS release (we only support the
latest release of the optional third-party packages:
https://orgmode.org/worg/org-maintenance.html#emacs-compatibility). No
changes to advice will be needed in future.

I plan to propose a patch for ESS soon and see if it is going to be

> Reading through `ess-request-a-process' is rather daunting, and it
> doesn't look straightforward to patch it to behave as we want. I think
> the reason is because ESS allows you to call `rename-buffer' on the
> inferior R session, and still have it remain associated with its editing
> buffers. Which is quite a different model than the way python.el works.

We can simply let-bind `ess-process-name-list' to alter what
`ess-request-a-process' returns. I do not see major problems here.

Ihor Radchenko // yantar92,
Org mode contributor,
Learn more about Org mode at <https://orgmode.org/>.
Support Org development at <https://liberapay.com/org-mode>,
or support my work at <https://liberapay.com/yantar92>

Reply via email to