On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 04:14:10PM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote: > Simons agruments, however, smell a lot of "standard gimp extension > language", because his goal is to have one language that is always pat > of gimp, which would effectively be a standard. I don't think that's a > bad idea at all, especially when we later think of macro recording and > other tasks, where we _will_ need some standardized macro language that > should be easy to translate into real scripts.
Exactly. And scheme is pretty good for that, since it's easy to parse, which makes writing a macro->real program script easy. Running a macro shouldn't need any extra dependencies either. So SIOD is fine for this, unless there is a smaller scheme implementation out there. Use of it for anything beyond simple macro logic should be discouraged. So there is room for a Guile binding which could run stuff that is .scm currently, and go beyond that with a full gtk and gimp binding. The same should be done for python (I have plans to do this) and perl, the idea being having languages besides C that can use the entire gimp API. -Yosh _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
