[Gimp-developer] changes in script-fu in 2.3.14
Many 3-rd side script-fu scripts, working in 2.3.12, refused to work in 2.3.14 on Windows. One of them even kills Gimp at program start. Where can I read what has changed in script-fu specifications to adapt scripts? Or has the API changed? -- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] improving bicubic interpolation
Von: Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Sun, 2007-01-28 at 22:04 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=363775 Sorry, but I am unable to follow your way of handling bug reports. If there's now a new bug that deals with remaining issues in bug #167956, why is the former not closed then? And why is the new bug not on the 2.4 milestone? ... and what is the state of the patch(es) attached to bug #167956? Michael -- Feel free - 10 GB Mailbox, 100 FreeSMS/Monat ... Jetzt GMX TopMail testen: http://www.gmx.net/de/go/topmail ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] changes in script-fu in 2.3.14
On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 16:05:26 +0200, Alexander Rabtchevich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Many 3-rd side script-fu scripts, working in 2.3.12, refused to work in 2.3.14 on Windows. One of them even kills Gimp at program start. Where can I read what has changed in script-fu specifications to adapt scripts? Or has the API changed? As you can read in the NEWS file, the Scheme interpreter for Script-Fu has been replaced in 2.3.13. The old one (SIOD) was replaced by a better one (TinyScheme). TinyScheme offers a better support for the Scheme standard and for foreign languages: the old Script-Fu based on SIOD did not work well with UTF-8 strings. The old interpreter tolerated some poor programming constructs that are not tolerated anymore by the new one. The main difference is that all variables have to be declared before being used. The old interpreter allowed you to do a (set! ...) on a variable without declaring it first and without giving it an appropriate scope in a (let ...) or (let* ...). Besides encouraging bad programming style (global variables), this resulted in some namespace pollution and even in some bugs due to undetected spelling errors in variable names. The new interpreter does not accept these errors anymore, so if you have a script that was abusing set!, then you should fix the bugs in your script and ensure that all variables are given an appropriate scope using let. Maybe we should retroactively change the NEWS file and add another line to the 2.3.13 entry saying something like all variables in script-fu should be declared before being used? -Raphaël ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] kdevelop and gimp
On 1/26/07, Michael Natterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 2007-01-26 at 10:33 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: This was pretty trivial but not obvious at first since gimp uses autotools in a non-standard way. Where exactly was the problem in using a different --prefix and how does GIMP use autotools in a non-standard way? gg is probably referring to KDevelop's automake manager. I can only assume that it is following some best practices that they have themselves derived and what GIMP does doesn't match perfectly. KDevelop is certainly becoming very useful; I've had it lock up on me (regularly) when trying to edit larger projects imported from other systems though. It seems to especially not like code thrown by Rational Rose. Chris ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] changes in script-fu in 2.3.14
Raphaël, could you please explain me (I'm new to scheme) in a few words, why the global variables are poor style coding? From my POV, they can only introduce memory consumption in common case (but not in the case of GIMP script-fu) and maybe some redefinitions in a large program (this doesn't concern Gimp also). But the inability to use global variables along with scheme syntaxes leads to a good deal of parentheses which could be a problem to a programmer. So why isn't it be up to a programmer to decide what kind of coding he prefers? The real result of the changes in the interpreter is that almost all third-party scripts I have on my PC doesn't work anymore and one of them even kills Gimp at startup. Does the coding style improvement worth the loss of interoperability? I'm not complaining, I'm trying to analyze. The old interpreter tolerated some poor programming constructs that are not tolerated anymore by the new one. The main difference is that all variables have to be declared before being used. The old interpreter allowed you to do a (set! ...) on a variable without declaring it first and without giving it an appropriate scope in a (let ...) or (let* ...). -- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] changes in script-fu in 2.3.14
Hi, On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 16:13 +0100, Raphaël Quinet wrote: Maybe we should retroactively change the NEWS file and add another line to the 2.3.13 entry saying something like all variables in script-fu should be declared before being used? I don't think that the NEWS file is the right place for this. Someone should set up a detailed description of the changes with instructions on how to fix scripts that stop working after the update. We should then refer to this document from the 2.3 release notes (and of course also from the 2.4 release notes when they are written). Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] changes in script-fu in 2.3.14
Hi, On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:11 +0200, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote: Raphaël, could you please explain me (I'm new to scheme) in a few words, why the global variables are poor style coding? They are simply not allowed in Scheme. From my POV, they can only introduce memory consumption in common case (but not in the case of GIMP script-fu) and maybe some redefinitions in a large program (this doesn't concern Gimp also). It does concern GIMP as all scripts live in the same namespace. A global variable defined in one script affects all other scripts. But the inability to use global variables along with scheme syntaxes leads to a good deal of parentheses which could be a problem to a programmer. I don't see how this introduces the need for more parentheses. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] Meaning of delay in screenshot plugin
Hi, On Mon, 2007-01-29 at 22:21 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote: Okay, it sounds like the developers aren't willing to put back the delay functionality that was removed from the screenshot plug-in. So for those of us who need the delay and don't want to go back to 2.2, I've grabbed the old 2.2 screenshot plug-in, updated it so it works with 2.3, fixed a couple of warnings it was giving (gchar vs. guchar), and made it build as a standalone plug-in (with gimptool --install). Why don't you just copy the screenshot binary from the 2.2 installation to your gimp-2.3 installation? Also your approach is very lame indeed. This discussion wasn't even close to coming to an end. It would have been a lot nicer to propose a solution instead of wasting time like this. So far no one has even tried to propose a user interface that fits all needs. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] changes in script-fu in 2.3.14
Sven Neumann wrote: On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:11 +0200, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote: Raphaël, could you please explain me (I'm new to scheme) in a few words, why the global variables are poor style coding? They are simply not allowed in Scheme. Ok, that is the reason. From my POV, they can only introduce memory consumption in common case (but not in the case of GIMP script-fu) and maybe some redefinitions in a large program (this doesn't concern Gimp also). It does concern GIMP as all scripts live in the same namespace. A global variable defined in one script affects all other scripts. Is the namespace cleared after script has finished its execution? And are there any scripts considered to run simultaneously? But the inability to use global variables along with scheme syntaxes leads to a good deal of parentheses which could be a problem to a programmer. I don't see how this introduces the need for more parentheses. ;before (set! selection-path (car (plug-in-sel2path 1 inImage inLayer))) ;after (let (selection-path (car (plug-in-sel2path 1 inImage inLayer))) ... ) note the _closing_ parentheses which should include all the area of the variable definition. -- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] changes in script-fu in 2.3.14
Hi, On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:40 +0200, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote: Is the namespace cleared after script has finished its execution? And are there any scripts considered to run simultaneously? The scripts are loaded when the Script-Fu extension is started. Of course the namespace isn't cleared or you couldn't run the script again. And there's only one interpreter process (currently) so there can only ever be a single script running. Sven ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
Re: [Gimp-developer] changes in script-fu in 2.3.14
Sven Neumann wrote: Is the namespace cleared after script has finished its execution? And are there any scripts considered to run simultaneously? The scripts are loaded when the Script-Fu extension is started. Of course the namespace isn't cleared or you couldn't run the script again. And there's only one interpreter process (currently) so there can only ever be a single script running. So if the scripts were loaded dynamically on demand: if the last executed instance differs from the script asked to run a new script should be loaded instead of previous, otherwise not, there should be not such a problem? -- With respect Alexander Rabtchevich ___ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
