[Gimp-developer] typo in the french translatio po/fr.po
Hello, Here is the patch : --- gimp-fr.po.orig 2004-03-21 11:38:20.0 +0100 +++ gimp-fr.po 2004-03-21 11:38:43.0 +0100 @@ -5706,7 +5706,7 @@ #. Global Brush, Pattern, ... #: app/gui/preferences-dialog.c:1422 msgid Paint Options Shared Between Tools -msgstr Options de painture partagées entre les outils +msgstr Options de peinture partagées entre les outils #: app/gui/preferences-dialog.c:1426 msgid _Brush -- Regards -Jean-Luc pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [Gimp-developer] no ppd file usable with gimp2.0pre4?
Am Freitag, 19. März 2004 03:38 schrieb Robert L Krawitz: From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 13 Mar 2004 13:10:08 +0100 Frank Noack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Its the same problem that i had before. It works fine with build in language (en) if i use it in german it fails. Now i can print with Turborint but without ppd-file. I show at http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Did you update to gimp-print 4.2.6 yet ? Frank, have you tried the patch I sent you? This is the last outstanding 4.2.7 release stopper and I'd like it tested so that we can proceed with our release. Yes i updated. The patch did not work for me, but i downloadet revision print-ps.c,v 1.26.2.6 2004/03/19 02:35:54 from the cvs tree. I compiled it with the src.rpm ghostscript-library-7.07.1rc1 from suse and now it works fine. I can print and i can use the ppd files. Thanks for your help, and sorry for my late answer. But i am not an big patcher and my english is Its a hard way for me but i like it. mfg Frank ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Press pack
Hi Dave, I made a couple of demos of the new GIMP 2 functionality. I believe it works a lot better than just a list of new functionality. They are divx avis and it's approx 80MB. Feel free to mirror it on the gimp.org website and use it for the 2.0 release extravaganza. http://jimmac.musichall.cz/gimp2demos.php cheers -- Jakub Steiner [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [Gimp-developer] Press pack
On 21 Mar 2004, at 19:17, Jakub Steiner wrote: I made a couple of demos of the new GIMP 2 functionality. I believe it works a lot better than just a list of new functionality. They are divx avis and it's approx 80MB. Feel free to mirror it on the gimp.org website and use it for the 2.0 release extravaganza. http://jimmac.musichall.cz/gimp2demos.php I have tried to play these demos using Windows Media Player (Microsoft) version 2, 7 and 9, and in all instances it crashed my mediaplayer. The error messages says something about a divx module; probably just the decoder I am using. Still, it would perhaps be handy to test this on other Windows installations if this URL is going to be sent to any other than GNU/Linux using journalists. -- branko collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] no ppd file usable with gimp2.0pre4?
From: Frank Noack [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:04:34 +0100 Am Freitag, 19. März 2004 03:38 schrieb Robert L Krawitz: From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: 13 Mar 2004 13:10:08 +0100 Frank Noack [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Its the same problem that i had before. It works fine with build in language (en) if i use it in german it fails. Now i can print with Turborint but without ppd-file. I show at http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net/ Did you update to gimp-print 4.2.6 yet ? Frank, have you tried the patch I sent you? This is the last outstanding 4.2.7 release stopper and I'd like it tested so that we can proceed with our release. Yes i updated. The patch did not work for me, but i downloadet revision print-ps.c,v 1.26.2.6 2004/03/19 02:35:54 from the cvs tree. I compiled it with the src.rpm ghostscript-library-7.07.1rc1 from suse and now it works fine. I can print and i can use the ppd files. Thanks for your help, and sorry for my late answer. But i am not an big patcher and my english is Its a hard way for me but i like it. Thanks! -- Robert Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tall Clubs International -- http://www.tall.org/ or 1-888-IM-TALL-2 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Project lead for Gimp Print --http://gimp-print.sourceforge.net Linux doesn't dictate how I work, I dictate how Linux works. --Eric Crampton ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Press pack
Hi Jimmac, Jakub Steiner wrote: I made a couple of demos of the new GIMP 2 functionality. I believe it works a lot better than just a list of new functionality. They are divx avis and it's approx 80MB. Feel free to mirror it on the gimp.org website and use it for the 2.0 release extravaganza. http://jimmac.musichall.cz/gimp2demos.php Cool :) Thanks a lot. Brix has taken over polishing of the press releases, since I really didn't have any time this week. Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] PDB Named Parameters
Great. Now, when you say it I remember Sven mentioning it in the past. But I guess that this new interface is not exported yet to any of the language bindings? Is that correct? Any plans when this API will become active? Regards, Dov FYI: the version of libpdb in CVS already uses named parameters instead of positional ones. Rockwalrus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] TheMark Shuttleworth offer)
One of the ideas that I believe Sven raised on irc, was that there should be a minimal and trivial interface to the PDB that is not based on any particular language but just consists of: gimp_foo -bar 3 -baz yellow Having such an interface to the PDB has several advantages: 1. It would take care of the quoting problems from the shell. E.g. gimp -nodisplay -cmd my_logo -text foo -bg_color yellow \ -cmd save_image -img 1 -filename foo.png 2. We could easily do recording and save into this format. 3. The format could easily be translated into script-fu, python, guile, etc. Possibly I misunderstood Sven though, in which I take all the blame. ;-) Regards, Dov On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 08:09:56AM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote: As Tor reminded me later, --batch doesn't work in gimp 1.2 under Windows, so that was the reason I couldn't use it. - Original Message - From: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Kevin Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, March 20, 2004 6:00 AM Subject: Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] TheMark Shuttleworth offer) Hi, Kevin Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Hmmm, I wonder why using the --batch option wasn't suggested when I ran into the problems that I mentioned previously... I guess that people assumed you knew about it. After all, googling for gimp batch leads you directly to Adrian's nice batch tutorial which is a bit outdated but still valid in the important parts: http://adrian.gimp.org/batch/batch.html Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] PDB Named Parameters
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:55:36PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Great. Now, when you say it I remember Sven mentioning it in the past. But I guess that this new interface is not exported yet to any of the language bindings? Is that correct? Any plans when this API will become active? It's not actually used in any GIMP code yet, and it's not been discussed how well it fits in with GIMP's needs going forward. So there aren't really any concrete plans yet. -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer)
Hi, Manish Singh wrote: A PDB revamp is planned. How far along is the planning? I have heard of Rock's libpdb, which I believe he wants to finish for 2.2, but I hadn't heard any concrete plans for the often-mentioned forthcoming PDB re-write. What requirements would the new PDB have? Cheers, Dave. -- David Neary, Lyon, France E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer)
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:39:23AM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote: It is utterly ridiculous that simply because I voiced concerns about and would like for the ability to have gimp scripts execute properly from the command line under Windows that you accuse me of making the GIMP suck. The suggestions that I offered earlier this evening were only thrown out for consideration, and I didn't try to force those down anyone's throat. All that I asked was that GIMP developers try to give adequate consideration to the needs of Windows based gimp users rather than selecting an implementation that I was worried might have an adverse impact. FWIW, the suggestion was ill-researched. (foo image=bar) is so very very un-Scheme like, which is surprising to hear from someone who has apparently written scripts from scratch. It pays to be versed in the language you're dealing with. Some bias towards Linux and other Unix based systems is completely understandable and acceptable to everyone. We all appreciate the deficiencies of Windows and its poor record of adhering to standards (though there are *many* similar examples in the *nix world as well). We also appreciate that the Linux community is making the biggest share of contributions to the GIMP development effort. What I don't appreciate, is your apparent lack of sympathy towards users who have *no* choice but to run under Windows (for any of numerous reasons) and who simply desire to use the gimp (just as you claim to), and to help enhance it to meet *their* needs, just as you enhance it to meet your own needs under Linux. The gimp is an open source product, and is also supported and developed by Windows users, not just *nix heads. So what gives you the right to presume that only *nix developers can own and control the GIMP (as your comments seem to imply), and to ignore the needs of Windows based users and the feedback and proposals of Windows based contributors? Except there are a number of ways already to workaround the deficiencies of the windows shell. Even if --batch - is broken, you could always save a script out to a file, put it in the scripts dir, and call it from the command line. I'm not saying at all that has happened in this specific instance regarding the issues that I raised earlier this evening and the subsequent discussion. What I am saying Carol, is that some of you appear to be having a rather knee jerk reaction against someone else who is merely trying to help the GIMP better support the operating system that they are using, no different than anyone else who might happen to be using some other OS. If the approach that I suggested won't work or will cause real problems under another OS, that's fine. But what isn't fine is to say in essence we don't care about Windows users and contributors, and we're not going to listen to their input, which is basically what I got out of your reply. It's also better to research your suggestions a little, so that they don't sound completely out there, thereby reinforcing the viewpoint that Windows users are clueless. -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] TheMark Shuttleworth offer)
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:01:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the ideas that I believe Sven raised on irc, was that there should be a minimal and trivial interface to the PDB that is not based on any particular language but just consists of: gimp_foo -bar 3 -baz yellow Well, we ship a scheme engine already, so writing and including yet another syntax parser seems kind of silly. Having such an interface to the PDB has several advantages: 1. It would take care of the quoting problems from the shell. E.g. gimp -nodisplay -cmd my_logo -text foo -bg_color yellow \ -cmd save_image -img 1 -filename foo.png There's still quoting problems for strings with spaces in them, parsing arbitrary colors, etc. 2. We could easily do recording and save into this format. Recording into scheme syntax is pretty easy. 3. The format could easily be translated into script-fu, python, guile, etc. No translation needed for script-fu (and probably not guile either), and python, perl, etc. already have many implementations of lispy type syntax parsers, which is nicer than writing a whole new one. -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Press pack
On Sun, 21 Mar 2004, Branko Collin wrote: Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:22:08 +0100 From: Branko Collin [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Gimp Developer [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] Press pack On 21 Mar 2004, at 19:17, Jakub Steiner wrote: I made a couple of demos of the new GIMP 2 functionality. I believe it works a lot better than just a list of new functionality. They are divx avis and it's approx 80MB. Feel free to mirror it on the gimp.org website and use it for the 2.0 release extravaganza. http://jimmac.musichall.cz/gimp2demos.php I have tried to play these demos using Windows Media Player (Microsoft) version 2, 7 and 9, and in all instances it crashed my mediaplayer. The error messages says something about a divx module; probably just the decoder I am using. Still, it would perhaps be handy to test this on other Windows installations if this URL is going to be sent to any other than GNU/Linux using journalists. If the video needs to be recoded may I humbly recommend using Xvid. http://www.xvid.org (although perhaps you are already using it merely referring to it as DivX for convenience) It is almost at 1.0, in the prerelease/release candidate stages at the moment. It is a proper open source MPEG 4 implementation. - Alan H ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer)
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote: Hi, Manish Singh wrote: A PDB revamp is planned. How far along is the planning? I have heard of Rock's libpdb, which I believe he wants to finish for 2.2, but I hadn't heard any concrete plans for the often-mentioned forthcoming PDB re-write. There hasn't been any real planning, other than planning to do some planning after 2.0 is out. All I was saying is that we haven't forgot about it. What requirements would the new PDB have? Not clear yet. I don't think we should really touch the PDB for 2.2, if we want to do a short release cycle for that. There's a number of issues to be addressed, like GEGL node support, efficiency, UI generation, distributed processing, and macro recording support. -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer)
- Original Message - From: Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:48 PM snip FWIW, the suggestion was ill-researched. (foo image=bar) is so very very un-Scheme like, which is surprising to hear from someone who has apparently written scripts from scratch. It pays to be versed in the language you're dealing with. I stand appropriately chastised. However, in my defense, I don't write script-fu every day (in fact haven't tried to write any in almost a year now, primarily due to the command line execution issues that I mentioned). Seems like Carol could have simply said that my propsal was too un-scheme-like (as Kelly did), and left it at that. I readily admitted in my opening statements *before* offering the suggestion that it might not be applicable. snip Except there are a number of ways already to workaround the deficiencies of the windows shell. Even if --batch - is broken, you could always save a script out to a file, put it in the scripts dir, and call it from the command line. Yosh, you say that there are a number of ways to work around the Windows shell limitations, and maybe there are, but up to this point nobody proposed one that would work in my scenario. And several folks who are much more knowledgeable about the gimp and script-fu than I am participated in the previous discussion. A number of possible suggestions were made, but all failed for one reason or another. If the approach that you are suggesting now would work, then that's great, but we all simply missed it before, and I guarantee you that Sven and Tor and the other folks who were involved in those prior discussions are not ignorant. It's just that this solution is not particularly obvious or straight-forward or elegant or easy to use. Let's make sure that I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly. Is it as follows: Write a second script that calls my original script, and embed the necessary parameter values in the new script? If that is correct, then yes, I might be able to write a Windows batch file that would take my command line options and write out the necessary line(s) to the new script file, then execute the new script file. And, I appreciate your suggestion. I just wish that this had come up a year ago when I was trying to get this to work. Still, wouldn't you agree that the requirement for this level of workaround under Windows is somewhat undesirable, even given a reasonable level of Linux bias? snip It's also better to research your suggestions a little, so that they don't sound completely out there, thereby reinforcing the viewpoint that Windows users are clueless. Yes, admittedly that is true whenever possible. However, sometimes when you are extremely busy with other tasks and don't have an opportunity to do the desired level of research, it is better to raise a possibly false alarm than it is to let a potential issue go by unnoticed. That seems especially true regarding Windows related issues, since most of the gimp contributors are Linux based, and might accidentally overlook something that could have an adverse effect on Windows usage. Doesn't that seem reasonable? Finally, wouldn't you also agree that it is better to be polite when rejecting someone else's well intentioned suggestions, than to respond in the extremely arrogant and insulting manner of Carol's replies to the newsgroup? s/KAM ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer)
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:32:08PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote: - Original Message - From: Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:48 PM Finally, wouldn't you also agree that it is better to be polite when rejecting someone else's well intentioned suggestions, than to respond in the extremely arrogant and insulting manner of Carol's replies to the newsgroup? arrogance? not matching the style of the lead developers on a developers list. not using google and not liking honest answers of what people actually use. using the words insulting and arrogant when describing someones actions who has been constantly involved since 2000 at least. hanging around more when money starts to dribble in? good intentions? i have been working since 2000 to share my good experiences on how to use the gimp, as well as my bad ones. sharing my personal details about how i use my computer to do the job that you want gimp to do only to be accused of not being helpful by you? Kevin: me and the gimp developers are going to show up at your house, eat your food and move your furniture around to suit our needs. please understand -- tis good intentions that allow us to do this and then complain if you dont like what we do. i am sure that Sven and yosh have great ideas about interior design. we will start with your plumbing -- even if it does works, we have been talking about ways it will work for us and our stay much better. you dont even have to thank us for our good intentions. your welcome, carol ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer)
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:32:08PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote: - Original Message - From: Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:48 PM snip FWIW, the suggestion was ill-researched. (foo image=bar) is so very very un-Scheme like, which is surprising to hear from someone who has apparently written scripts from scratch. It pays to be versed in the language you're dealing with. I stand appropriately chastised. However, in my defense, I don't write script-fu every day (in fact haven't tried to write any in almost a year now, primarily due to the command line execution issues that I mentioned). Seems like Carol could have simply said that my propsal was too un-scheme-like (as Kelly did), and left it at that. I readily admitted in my opening statements *before* offering the suggestion that it might not be applicable. Would've been better to do some research before posting at all. Except there are a number of ways already to workaround the deficiencies of the windows shell. Even if --batch - is broken, you could always save a script out to a file, put it in the scripts dir, and call it from the command line. Yosh, you say that there are a number of ways to work around the Windows shell limitations, and maybe there are, but up to this point nobody proposed one that would work in my scenario. And several folks who are much more knowledgeable about the gimp and script-fu than I am participated in the previous discussion. A number of possible suggestions were made, but all failed for one reason or another. If the approach that you are suggesting now would work, then that's great, but we all simply missed it before, and I guarantee you that Sven and Tor and the other folks who were involved in those prior discussions are not ignorant. It's just that this solution is not particularly obvious or straight-forward or elegant or easy to use. Let's make sure that I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly. Is it as follows: Write a second script that calls my original script, and embed the necessary parameter values in the new script? If that is correct, then yes, I might be able to write a Windows batch file that would take my command line options and write out the necessary line(s) to the new script file, then execute the new script file. And, I appreciate your suggestion. I just wish that this had come up a year ago when I was trying to get this to work. Still, wouldn't you agree that the requirement for this level of workaround under Windows is somewhat undesirable, even given a reasonable level of Linux bias? Well, first see if gimp --batch - works. If it does, then I don't think that's too much of a big deal to do instead of command line parameters. If it doesn't, then it should be fixed. But yes, you interpreted my suggestion accurately. It's also better to research your suggestions a little, so that they don't sound completely out there, thereby reinforcing the viewpoint that Windows users are clueless. Yes, admittedly that is true whenever possible. However, sometimes when you are extremely busy with other tasks and don't have an opportunity to do the desired level of research, it is better to raise a possibly false alarm than it is to let a potential issue go by unnoticed. That seems especially true regarding Windows related issues, since most of the gimp contributors are Linux based, and might accidentally overlook something that could have an adverse effect on Windows usage. Doesn't that seem reasonable? If it's important to you, you'll do the 10 mins of research and critical thinking needed. You raised your issue about quoting problems, but then you had time to follow up with a completely out there suggestion. So the too busy argument doesn't really fly. It's not like we're planning on making any changes related to this near term, so I don't see the urgency. Finally, wouldn't you also agree that it is better to be polite when rejecting someone else's well intentioned suggestions, than to respond in the extremely arrogant and insulting manner of Carol's replies to the newsgroup? Well, you brought up windows vs. *nix, when the issue is how Scheme works. Perhaps you should've tried to understand the problem better. -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer)
If it's important to you, you'll do the 10 mins of research and critical thinking needed. Apparantly you could research this a whole lot faster than I can, which isn't surprising since you work with gimp development almost every day. It would probably take me more than that amount of time just to track down a valid link to the docs for the version of Scheme that the gimp actually uses, much less try to interpret it. You raised your issue about quoting problems, but then you had time to follow up with a completely out there suggestion. So the too busy argument doesn't really fly. You have *no* idea. I've been putting in 18+ hour days for months on end, trying to keep my company above water. I posted these suggestions (and this note) in the down time while I am waiting for my computer to complete other tasks. It's not like we're planning on making any changes related to this near term, so I don't see the urgency. The only urgency is this: I try to respond to things when I see them, when the potential for an issue occurs to me and while the topic is fresh on my mind. If I try to wait until later, then two bad things happen: 1) a lot of issues would get dropped, and more importantly 2) if I bring it up later then folks would claim that it was too late to change things and say why didn't you bring up your concerns sooner when this issue was being discussed? Finally, wouldn't you also agree that it is better to be polite when rejecting someone else's well intentioned suggestions, than to respond in the extremely arrogant and insulting manner of Carol's replies to the newsgroup? Well, you brought up windows vs. *nix, when the issue is how Scheme works. As mentioned, my concern was the command line syntax issue. I don't know all of the Scheme syntax rules. While I was writing my script with Scheme, I found it to be a very arcane language, with very little documentation available, *especially* for the apparantly outdated or non-standard version that the gimp seems to use. So, I thought that I should leave it up to the experts to decide whether my concerns or suggestions were valid, rather than trying to reach those conclusions on my own based on using either the wrong documentation, or misinterpreting the documentation due to being a neophyte with the language, especially considering the limited time that I had available. Finally, *far* too much time and bandwidth has already been wasted on this discussion for all concerned. If folks could have simply explained that my suggestion wouldn't work, rather than making inflammatory statements, then all of this excessive discussion could have been avoided. I've already decided not to respond to Carol's further emails (even though I would like to defend my position) in order to keep from dragging this out further. I now have some idea of your gripes against my input, and hopefully you now have some idea of why my input was provided in the manner that it was. I doubt that anything further can be accomplished. So, how about if we just drop this now, and give all of the other folks on the list a break? s/KAM ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer)
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 05:57:04PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote: If it's important to you, you'll do the 10 mins of research and critical thinking needed. Apparantly you could research this a whole lot faster than I can, which isn't surprising since you work with gimp development almost every day. It would probably take me more than that amount of time just to track down a valid link to the docs for the version of Scheme that the gimp actually uses, much less try to interpret it. There isn't anything gimp specific. It's straight Scheme. The issue is that you didn't even bother to *try*. Show some respect by doing attempting a little research. Even if you don't get it, that's ok, but you should try. You raised your issue about quoting problems, but then you had time to follow up with a completely out there suggestion. So the too busy argument doesn't really fly. You have *no* idea. I've been putting in 18+ hour days for months on end, trying to keep my company above water. I posted these suggestions (and this note) in the down time while I am waiting for my computer to complete other tasks. Same downtime could've been used for some research. It's not like we're planning on making any changes related to this near term, so I don't see the urgency. The only urgency is this: I try to respond to things when I see them, when the potential for an issue occurs to me and while the topic is fresh on my mind. If I try to wait until later, then two bad things happen: 1) a lot of issues would get dropped, and more importantly 2) if I bring it up later then folks would claim that it was too late to change things and say why didn't you bring up your concerns sooner when this issue was being discussed? You said it was an important issue. If it's really important, you wouldn't forget it. Also, it's clear that we're getting ready to put out a new stable release, after which there will be plenty of architecture dicussions when it'll be more relevant. Finally, wouldn't you also agree that it is better to be polite when rejecting someone else's well intentioned suggestions, than to respond in the extremely arrogant and insulting manner of Carol's replies to the newsgroup? Well, you brought up windows vs. *nix, when the issue is how Scheme works. As mentioned, my concern was the command line syntax issue. I don't know all of the Scheme syntax rules. While I was writing my script with Scheme, I found it to be a very arcane language, with very little documentation available, *especially* for the apparantly outdated or non-standard version that the gimp seems to use. So, I thought that I should leave it up to the experts to decide whether my concerns or suggestions were valid, rather than trying to reach those conclusions on my own based on using either the wrong documentation, or misinterpreting the documentation due to being a neophyte with the language, especially considering the limited time that I had available. But you twisted it into a windows vs. *nix issue, which is what Carol responded to. You really didn't have to do that. A more constructive line of thought is to perhaps enable other language bindings on the command line. Both perl and python work on windows too. Finally, *far* too much time and bandwidth has already been wasted on this discussion for all concerned. If folks could have simply explained that my suggestion wouldn't work, rather than making inflammatory statements, then all of this excessive discussion could have been avoided. I've already decided not to respond to Carol's further emails (even though I would like to defend my position) in order to keep from dragging this out further. I now have some idea of your gripes against my input, and hopefully you now have some idea of why my input was provided in the manner that it was. I doubt that anything further can be accomplished. So, how about if we just drop this now, and give all of the other folks on the list a break? Shouldn't have started with the whole unix bias thing to begin with... But yes, let's drop it. We can discuss language bindings and batch mode in the content of 2.2 and beyond. -Yosh ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] TheMark Shuttleworth offer)
On 03/21/04 15:01, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the ideas that I believe Sven raised on irc, was that there should be a minimal and trivial interface to the PDB that is not based on any particular language but just consists of: gimp_foo -bar 3 -baz yellow Perhaps I'm being extremely dense, but couldn't there be an interface: gimp -cmdfile filename Surely notepad can handle funny characters and the name of the file is completely up to you so you can make it as shell-friendly as you'd like. GIMP could have some extra code to handle text mode files, but that's about all that would be needed ... Chris -- He who despairs over an event is a coward, but he who holds hopes for the human condition is a fool. -- Albert Camus ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] TheMark Shuttleworth offer)
Perhaps I'm being extremely dense, but couldn't there be an interface: gimp -cmdfile filename I think that the existing --batch option is equivalent to what you are suggesting. Unfortunately that option doesn't work using Gimp 1.2.x under Windows. I haven't heard from anyone else and haven't yet tested myself to see whether this option works in gimp 2.0, but some of the developers seem to think there is a good chance that it might. I hope to get a chance to try it out again in the near future. s/KAM ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] TheMark Shuttleworth offer)
On 03/22/04 00:45, Kevin Myers wrote: Perhaps I'm being extremely dense, but couldn't there be an interface: gimp -cmdfile filename I think that the existing --batch option is equivalent Ah, hmm. For some reason I had gathered that this option took the script on the commandline, which is where the metacharacter problem lie. I'll go back to my hovel and keep quiet, obviously never have used it. Chris ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] TheMark Shuttleworth offer)
From: Christopher W. Curtis [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 12:06 AM On 03/22/04 00:45, Kevin Myers wrote: Perhaps I'm being extremely dense, but couldn't there be an interface: gimp -cmdfile filename I think that the existing --batch option is equivalent Ah, hmm. For some reason I had gathered that this option took the script on the commandline, which is where the metacharacter problem lie. I'll go back to my hovel and keep quiet, obviously never have used it. Then again, maybe I am the one who is missing something (again?). Since the --batch option hasn't previously worked under Windows, I haven't yet had the opportunity to try it (successfully) either. Guess I'll just have to install 2.0, and find out... FWIW, it has been difficult for me to work up to this change so far, because other than the command line arguments issue, 1.2.4 has been generally working well for us, and my copy has some initial display scale customizations that I implemented and am somewhat loathe to give up. However, I know that Sven and company implemented some kind of alternate initial scaling that was intended to address essentially the same issues that I was trying to solve, so hopefully that will be adequate for our needs. s/KAM ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] TheMark Shuttleworth offer)
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 12:56:32PM -0800, Manish Singh wrote: On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 10:01:26PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: One of the ideas that I believe Sven raised on irc, was that there should be a minimal and trivial interface to the PDB that is not based on any particular language but just consists of: gimp_foo -bar 3 -baz yellow Well, we ship a scheme engine already, so writing and including yet another syntax parser seems kind of silly. I actually forgot one advantage. A meta-character void syntax has the advantage of being friendly for command line interactive use. After all, who many people do you know who are using either perl or scheme for their default shell. ;-) Dov ___ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
