> Sven Neumann wrote:
> "script-fu-save-all-images" is a name in the script-fu namespace. This
> namespace should be kept for scripts that are distributed with
> Script-Fu. It would be safer to call your script for example
> "saulgoode-save-all-images". If we ever added a script called
> "script-fu-save-all-images" to GIMP, your script would not clash with
> it.

Thanks again for the information. It is a very reasonable policy of which
I was unaware. From what I have seen, the vast majority of third-party
Script-fu authors also are unaware of this and there is a Script-fu
tutorial on GIMP.org which recommends using the "script-fu-" namespace
(see below).

There is currently a fairly extensive effort ongoing to update older
scripts to assure compatibility with the TinyScheme-based interpreter.
Would you recommend that these updates be encouraged to avoid the
"script-fu-" namespace? If so, can we perhaps recommend a namespace
convention for third-party scripts that might be more standardized?

While using the script author's name as a base for the namespace would
solve conflicts, perhaps we could also suggest a prefix to that so that
third-party scripts would be easily recognized and grouped within the PDB
browser (e.g., using "sf-author-" as a namespace).


3.4.4.  Naming Conventions


It's GIMP convention to name your script functions script-fu-abc, because
then when they're listed in the procedural database, they'll all show up
under script-fu when you're listing the functions. This also helps
distinguish them from plug-ins.

Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to