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.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to