On 18 Mar 2004, at 16:38, Daniel Rogers wrote:
So,
More details have come forward about the Mark Shuttleworth offer.
Mark Shuttleworth made up his mind and decided to fund myself and
Calvin to work on GEGL and GIMP/GEGL integration. Until today, I
didn't have any specific details on the
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:27:04AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 07:48:59PM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what would be a good way for perl to support both named and positional
stuff?
It simply shouldn't. It should either do positional where it is
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 01:22:23PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 02:19:09PM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While on that subject, I'm wondering what a good way of representing
named parameters in scheme and perl would be. Any thoughts?
This is natural,
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,
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
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
- 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
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,
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
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
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
-
From: Carol Spears [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kevin Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]; GIMPDev
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 11:17 PM
Subject: Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The
Mark Shuttleworth offer)
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 09:26:23PM -0600, Kevin Myers
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:56:36AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
[stuff deleted]
The only thing that struck me as missing was the work involved with
porting the plug-ins to the new API, but Raphaël already pointed that
out in another reply to this thread.
I very much hope that at least
Hi Dan,
Daniel Rogers wrote:
More details have come forward about the Mark Shuttleworth offer. Mark
Shuttleworth made up his mind and decided to fund myself and Calvin to
work on GEGL and GIMP/GEGL integration.
Congratulations! :)
Also, I want to prepare a press release about this, and would
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We could even consider having a quickish stable release after 2.2 with
just GeglImage replacing GimpLayer, which would give us a chance to
work out any wrinkles in that milestone before we start really relying
on it...
GeglImage can't replace GimpLayer,
Raphaël Quinet wrote:
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:38:55 -0800, Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More details have come forward about the Mark Shuttleworth offer. Mark
Shuttleworth made up his mind and decided to fund myself and Calvin to
work on GEGL and GIMP/GEGL integration. Until today, I
Kelly Martin wrote:
Dave Neary wrote:
We could even consider having a quickish stable release after 2.2 with
just GeglImage replacing GimpLayer, which would give us a chance to
work out any wrinkles in that milestone before we start really relying
on it...
Unless the code has changed a lot
Michael Natterer wrote:
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
We could even consider having a quickish stable release after 2.2 with
just GeglImage replacing GimpLayer, which would give us a chance to
work out any wrinkles in that milestone before we start really relying
on it...
GeglImage
Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [Gimp-developer] The Mark Shuttleworth offer
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2004 06:54:34 -0800
Kelly Martin wrote:
Dave Neary wrote:
We could even consider having a quickish stable
Michael Natterer wrote:
Actually no. GimpDrawable is a GimpItem is a GimpObject. It should
*have* a GeglImage, not be one.
Damn it. yes. I meant delagation, not inheritance.
--
Dan
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Michael Natterer wrote:
Actually no. GimpDrawable is a GimpItem is a GimpObject. It should
*have* a GeglImage, not be one.
Yes, this is probably correct. Tempbufs should probably also be replaced by
GeglImages, and the entire paint core replaced by GeglOp-related operations.
As I see it,
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:50:23AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:56:36AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
[stuff deleted]
The only thing that struck me as missing was the work involved with
porting the plug-ins to the new API, but Rapha?l already pointed
Manish Singh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:50:23AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:56:36AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
[stuff deleted]
The only thing that struck me as missing was the work involved with
porting the plug-ins
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:58:25AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
Manish Singh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:50:23AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:56:36AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
[stuff deleted]
The only thing that struck
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 '(imageimage)
'(drawable drawable)
'(radius 5.5)
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 '(imageimage)
'(drawable
Simon Budig wrote:
Ok, thinking some more about it: What about using symbols as parameter
identifiers?
(script-fu-foo-bar 'imageimage
'drawable drawable
'radius 5.5
'size 300)
passing symbols to the PDB doesn't make sense,
parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The
Mark Shuttleworth offer)
Simon Budig wrote:
Ok, thinking some more about it: What about using symbols as parameter
identifiers?
(script-fu-foo-bar 'imageimage
'drawable drawable
'radius 5.5
Kevin Myers wrote:
(script-fu-foo-bar image=myimage size=300)
Defining syntax macros for such a syntax in Scheme is less than straightforward,
and is also very un-Scheme-like.
Kelly
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 8:11 PM
Subject: Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The
Mark Shuttleworth offer)
Kevin Myers wrote:
(script-fu-foo-bar image=myimage size=300)
Defining syntax macros for such a syntax in Scheme
Kevin Myers wrote:
You seem to know what you're talking about Kelly, so I'll have to accept
your word that my suggestion is un-Scheme-like. However, please verify one
thing regarding your suggestion: How do you handle parameter values with
imbedded blanks or other special characters?
(True)
- Original Message -
From: Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kevin Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 9:07 PM
Subject: Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The
Mark Shuttleworth offer)
Kevin Myers wrote:
You seem to know what
Kevin Myers wrote:
Hi Kelly,
I understand your basic points, but...
Admittedly, the Windows command prompt (not simply Explorer) is less capable
than most *nix command shells. However, there are also a very large number
of Windows based GIMP users, and one of the requirements of GIMP 2.x is
Kelly Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Kevin Myers wrote:
Admittedly, the Windows command prompt (not simply Explorer) is less
capable than most *nix command shells. However, there are also a
very large number of Windows based GIMP users, and one of the
requirements of GIMP 2.x is that
- Original Message -
From: Kelly Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Kevin Myers [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 9:48 PM
Subject: Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The
Mark Shuttleworth offer)
Kevin Myers wrote:
Hi Kelly,
I
Simon Budig writes:
If a windows user really needs scripting, I'd recommend to install
e.g. a bash.
True, but doesn't necessarily help. The Win32 process invokation API
(CreateProcess()) doesn't use a argument vector like Unix does. It
uses a command line. The argv that a C or C+++ main()
and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer] The
Mark Shuttleworth offer)
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 09:26:23PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote:
Admittedly, the Windows command prompt (not simply Explorer) is less
capable
than most *nix command shells. However, there are also a very large
number
So,
More details have come forward about the Mark Shuttleworth offer. Mark
Shuttleworth made up his mind and decided to fund myself and Calvin to
work on GEGL and GIMP/GEGL integration. Until today, I didn't have any
specific details on the offer.
I am pretty sure the offer essentially the
On Thu, 18 Mar 2004 16:38:55 -0800, Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
More details have come forward about the Mark Shuttleworth offer. Mark
Shuttleworth made up his mind and decided to fund myself and Calvin to
work on GEGL and GIMP/GEGL integration. Until today, I didn't have any
Hi,
On Fri, 2004-03-19 at 01:38, Daniel Rogers wrote:
More details have come forward about the Mark Shuttleworth offer. Mark
Shuttleworth made up his mind and decided to fund myself and Calvin to
work on GEGL and GIMP/GEGL integration. Until today, I didn't have any
specific details on
40 matches
Mail list logo
