Sven Neumann wrote:
First of all, I would like to hear Kevin on this. I have asked him to
tell us about his goals for Tiny-Fu and in order to evaluate this
question, we absolutely need to know what the goals are.
My goals re: Tiny-Fu have never changed. See my reply to the "devel docs"
Instead of removing our only platform independent language binding, we
should apply the changes that Kevin has done in the gimp-tiny-fu module
to the plug-ins/script-fu directory in the GIMP tree.
You suggested moving Script-Fu (and pygimp) in to a module outside of the GIMP
source tree in 2004. If you currently prefer to keep Script-Fu in the main
source tree and roll the Tiny-Fu changes in to the existing Script-Fu plug-in,
that could be done. It would also avoid any issues relating to where
Script-Fu bugs should be filed in Bugzilla.
> This should be a
> relatively small change since it only involves replacing the Scheme
> interpreter. The scripts itself and probably most of the UI code can be
Define small. ;-) It isn't all that bad but it may not be as small a change as
you think. I have done a quick global search/replace on a copy of the Tiny-Fu
source files so I could run a diff against Script-Fu.
I'm still reviewing the changes listed in the diff to come up with a patch
file for the main set of changes to the Script-Fu source. At the moment, there
are 9 files that will be altered, a tenth (siod-wrapper.c) should be renamed
in addition to changes, the siod directory will be removed, three directories
with source will be added, and a few Makefile will need to be updated.
I would suggest using the Tiny-Fu scripts as they are known to work with
Tiny-Fu. The Script-Fu ones may work but I haven't tested them recently and
don't particularly feel like going through the process of testing 95+ scripts
(again). I would also prefer to use the Tiny-Fu I had made some of the
globally defined functions in the script files local to functions in the
script. This avoids conflicts between scripts that defined a function with the
same name but may not have been identical. In addition, I reformatted the
Tiny-Fu scripts which makes it easier to see the syntax of the language. IMO
this makes them better as example scripts, and makes it easier for the new or
casual Script-Fu writer to write or modify a script as they won't have to
waste a ton of time counting brackets to find out where they missed one (or
> Development on Script-Fu can then continue as usual and
hopefully under the lead of Kevin and the tiny-fu CVS module has
fulfilled its role and can be declared as merged and closed.
I don't plan on going anywhere. In the short term, I would be about the only
one familiar with the TinyScheme portion of a new Script-Fu. The Tiny-Fu could
probably be closed after a merge although I wonder if it might still have any
value as a sandbox for work relating to version 2.
I will work on creating a TinyScheme based Script-Fu. I will want a clear "go
ahead" from the core developer(s) before a TinyScheme based version of
Script-Fu gets commited to the main GIMP source tree. Once a merge takes place
we will be commited to using "Tiny-Fu" due mainly to the number of changes and
the hassle it would be to back out all the changes.
http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/ |"What are we going to do today, Borg?"
Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus:
| Try to assimilate the world!"
#include <disclaimer/favourite> | -Pinkutus & the Borg
Gimp-developer mailing list