----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Manish Singh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:48 PM


> 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
> 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


> 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?


> 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


Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to