On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Alchemie fotografiche
<fotocom...@yahoo.it> wrote:
> I believe there are some "artificial" limitation to the potential of script 
> fu, derived by the exigence to "categorize " the scripts in 2 main categories:
> "Previous toolbox-scripts" that create a new imagine
> "imagine script" that should modify the active imagine

I want to make this clear: In English language 'create a new imagine'
is nonsense. imagine is a verb, as in 'I imagine I am eating a juicy
watermelon'; it's an action, not a thing.

'image' is the noun, you can 'create a new image' or 'modify the active image';
All of the instances I have seen where you used the word 'imagine',
'image' was the appropriate word.

Personally, I often find your use of 'imagine' confusing, so I think
you could improve the readability of your posts and how many people
respond by making this change.

> I suppose that division had some reasons to be with the old gimp layout.
> But now ,after Gimp 2.4 i cannot imagine any reason to maintain such 
> "artificial" distinction.
> "artificial" because a script may do both and more
> Same script may work on the active layer,and/or create a new layer, and/or 
> create a new imagine...
> Stressing the point , in general a good flexible script SHOULD do more, 
> allowing to chose most logic input (except for "render" script" )and the 
> output options
> As now if a script is classified as "image script" users may overlook the 
> fact that may also create a new imagine , because imagine scripts are not 
> supposed to do that
> As now a good and flexible script that can output on a new imagine, Or/and in 
> a new layer of the active imagine or/and on the active layer or drawable will 
> be always erroneously classified since there is not yet in Gimp a script 
> category as "Good scripts without unneeded artificial limitations "
> That is mostly evident with all the "Logos" and "alpha to logo " scripts
> 2 Groups of almost identical scripts with same names
> (I may assure here that most users will notice only 1 group, and ignore the 
> other.
>  or if by chance someone will notice the other group  will believe that a 
> different link for the  same identical function since the   names  are 
> identical)
> Solve that chaos of the "Logos" -"Alpha to Logo" script may be become much 
> easier if there is a commune agreement that a "LOGO_RELATED" script should
> allow to output the result
> 1) as new imagine
> (with a option to have Transparency as background ... not only a solid color 
> as now)
> 2) as new layer(s) pasted on the active imagine
> 3) as modification of the active layer
> 4) any combination of the options above
> This at least for the scripts to be bundled in Gimp, then the authors of 
> extra scripts have obviously the freedom to offer less options if they wish, 
> but they will get no more artificial limitation to the potential of their 
> scripts..and no more the risk to have their script mis-categorized
> (again limitation are more for users then for the scripts...if a script is a 
> Imagine-script is supposed no to to create a new imagine, so most users will 
> not look for such option even if available)
This is true. Personally I ignore script-fu.. There are some useful
script-fu scripts, but most scripts seem to be about things like
rendering logos, which is something I'll never use.
> please consider that i am not expert in script fu, i wrote only 2 scripts and 
> that was possible only with a great help.
> But somehow i felt this a point to be discussed, if solved i believe also 
> many usability issues of the Gimp "Logos" and "Alpha to logo" scripts may be 
> solved much more easily (hopefully merging the  2 groups )

In theory, your idea sounds like a good improvement. As I said, I
don't use this 'logo generating' type of script, so someone else who
does might be able to offer you more useful feedback.

Gimp-developer mailing list

Reply via email to