when i gisted a session i got the following output
But i expected this output.
If we dupped the result object before sticking it in _out_ we could avoid this problem (we'd have to make exceptions for non-duppable objects, of course)
I think I'd prefer saving the formatted string for each entry in _out_ instead of trying to dup things.
@rf- that's probably better, but would prevent them setting up a separate inspect for gist, but that's not a big deal.
But _out_ is useful for referencing as an object. E.g. it's the reason why we didn't have to have 3-underscore and 4-underscore and 5-underscore vars, since _out_[-3] and so forth work.
How about an _outs_ or something?
@rking we'd keep _out_ referencing the objects themselves, i was thinking more about a parallel array for storing the associated inspect. The array (i dont think) needs to be exposed inside the pry session, but it could be useful for commands to access, i.e gist :)
It doesn't need to be a special local (I never use _in_ either), but it'd be useful to have a record.
hi @banister - perhaps related is this: https://github.com/pry/pry/blob/master/lib/pry/config/behavior.rb#L108-L114
we duplicate configuration values unless they're of some type in NODUP. _in_ and _out_ aren't part of that, though, I believe.