On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 16:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.

I agree that we should have a "standard gimp scripting language" but
nothing prevents us from having it in a separate package on which The
GIMP depends on being installed - just as we depend on GTK+ being
installed (and just as we will depend on GEGL being installed in a not
too distant future).

I believe the project would benefit from splitting stuff like script-fu,
python-fu etc. out from the main source module into their own. Why? To
make the GIMP source code more modular. IMO, modularity means easier to
maintain, easier to grok for new developers - and the beauty of it all:
a much better separation between the different modules.

./Brix
-- 
Henrik Brix Andersen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>

_______________________________________________
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.xcf.berkeley.edu/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer

Reply via email to