I reported something I saw as a bug [bugzilla #132698] and Sven replied that DB Browser shows enum values used for arguments (ie. GIMP_RGB_IMAGE) as they would be used from C plug-ins. It would seem I haven't been following the GIMP development closely enough since I wasn't aware of this. It raises a number of questions though.
Is the - vs _ use in function names by C vs. Script-Fu historical (as in typical of the respective languages)?
Barring the issue of - vs _, why should we have a different set of enum values for plug-ins based on different languages? DB Browser shows GIMP_RGB_IMAGE for an image type (for C) but its only RGB-IMAGE for Script-Fu scripts and I have no idea off-hand what it would be for Perl plug-ins (a third set of enums?).
One could also argue against the C format being chosen for display in DB Browser since a GIMP user would find it much easier (and would be more likely?) to develop their own plug-ins at first in Script-Fu (or possibly Perl) since all they need is a text editor and there are other scripts which can be used as a starting point.
I'm also raising issue also because I thought that one of the goals for the 2.0 release is to simplify/tidy-up some things. Having more consistency in the enums used (regardless of language used for a plug-in/script and ignore - vs _ issues) makes sense (to me at least). Trying to get DB Browser to display different information based on you telling it which type of plug-in one wants to create is probably not a good alternative. I think it would add too much complexity and be hard to maintain.
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" E-mail:kcozens at interlog dot com|"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: Packet:[EMAIL PROTECTED]| Try to assimilate the world!" #include <disclaimer/favourite> | -Pinkutus & the Borg
_______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer