On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:34:02AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> Manish Singh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:58:25AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> > > For scheme we could do something like this:
> > >
> > > (script-fu-foo-bar '("image" image)
> > > '("drawable" drawable)
> > > '("radius" 5.5)
> > > '("size" 300))
> > >
> > > or (less clutter)
> > >
> > > (script-fu-foo-bar "image" image
> > > "drawable" drawable
> > > "radius" 5.5
> > > "size" 300)
> > >
> > > that having said: I don't have much experience with scheme outside
> > > script fu, so there might be a convention out there on how to do named
> > > parameters.
> >
> > Again there is the problem of differeniating between positional
> > and named usage.
>
> Ok, thinking some more about it: What about using symbols as parameter
> identifiers?
>
> (script-fu-foo-bar 'image image
> 'drawable drawable
> 'radius 5.5
> 'size 300)
>
> passing symbols to the PDB doesn't make sense, so this could be used
> to differentiate.
That's a good idea. Unless there's some other standard way of handling
this in scheme (anyone?) this sounds good to me.
-Yosh
_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
