On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 03:27:04AM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Thu, Mar 25, 2004 at 07:48:59PM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So what would be a good way for perl to support both named and positional
stuff?
It simply shouldn't. It should either do positional where it is
On Tue, Mar 23, 2004 at 01:22:23PM +0100, Marc Lehmann wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 02:19:09PM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
While on that subject, I'm wondering what a good way of representing
named parameters in scheme and perl would be. Any thoughts?
This is natural,
Hi,
Manish Singh wrote:
A PDB revamp is planned.
How far along is the planning? I have heard of Rock's libpdb,
which I believe he wants to finish for 2.2, but I hadn't heard
any concrete plans for the often-mentioned forthcoming PDB
re-write.
What requirements would the new PDB have?
Cheers,
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:39:23AM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote:
It is utterly ridiculous that simply because I voiced concerns about and
would like for the ability to have gimp scripts execute properly from the
command line under Windows that you accuse me of making the GIMP suck.
The suggestions
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 09:44:25PM +0100, David Neary wrote:
Hi,
Manish Singh wrote:
A PDB revamp is planned.
How far along is the planning? I have heard of Rock's libpdb,
which I believe he wants to finish for 2.2, but I hadn't heard
any concrete plans for the often-mentioned
- Original Message -
From: Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:48 PM
snip
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
apparently
written scripts from scratch. It
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:32:08PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:48 PM
Finally, wouldn't you also agree that it is better to be polite when
rejecting someone else's well intentioned suggestions,
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:32:08PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:48 PM
snip
FWIW, the suggestion was ill-researched. (foo image=bar) is so very very
un-Scheme like, which is surprising to hear
If it's important to you, you'll do the 10 mins of research and critical
thinking needed.
Apparantly you could research this a whole lot faster than I can, which
isn't surprising since you work with gimp development almost every day. It
would probably take me more than that amount of time
On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 05:57:04PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote:
If it's important to you, you'll do the 10 mins of research and critical
thinking needed.
Apparantly you could research this a whole lot faster than I can, which
isn't surprising since you work with gimp development almost
hello kevin,
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:39:23AM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote:
Hi Carol,
I/we are already users and contributors to the ImageMagick and
GraphicsMagick projects as well as the GIMP. Both of those programs and the
GIMP have certain key strengths and weaknesses with respect to each
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:50:23AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:56:36AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
[stuff deleted]
The only thing that struck me as missing was the work involved with
porting the plug-ins to the new API, but Rapha?l already pointed
Manish Singh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:50:23AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:56:36AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
[stuff deleted]
The only thing that struck me as missing was the work involved with
porting the plug-ins
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:58:25AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
Manish Singh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:50:23AM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:56:36AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
[stuff deleted]
The only thing that struck
Manish Singh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:58:25AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
For scheme we could do something like this:
(script-fu-foo-bar '(imageimage)
'(drawable drawable)
'(radius 5.5)
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:34:02AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
Manish Singh ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:58:25AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
For scheme we could do something like this:
(script-fu-foo-bar '(imageimage)
'(drawable
Simon Budig wrote:
Ok, thinking some more about it: What about using symbols as parameter
identifiers?
(script-fu-foo-bar 'imageimage
'drawable drawable
'radius 5.5
'size 300)
passing symbols to the PDB doesn't make sense,
For various reasons that I don't know about or don't completely understand,
several of the proposals that have already been made may be far superior to
what I am about to suggest. In fact, there could easily be some reason why
my suggestion is completely unworkable. Never the less, I have worked
Kevin Myers wrote:
(script-fu-foo-bar image=myimage size=300)
Defining syntax macros for such a syntax in Scheme is less than straightforward,
and is also very un-Scheme-like.
Kelly
___
Gimp-developer mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
You seem to know what you're talking about Kelly, so I'll have to accept
your word that my suggestion is un-Scheme-like. However, please verify one
thing regarding your suggestion: How do you handle parameter values with
imbedded blanks or other special characters?
I am especially concerned
Kevin Myers wrote:
You seem to know what you're talking about Kelly, so I'll have to accept
your word that my suggestion is un-Scheme-like. However, please verify one
thing regarding your suggestion: How do you handle parameter values with
imbedded blanks or other special characters?
(True)
Hi Kelly,
I understand your basic points, but...
Admittedly, the Windows command prompt (not simply Explorer) is less capable
than most *nix command shells. However, there are also a very large number
of Windows based GIMP users, and one of the requirements of GIMP 2.x is that
it should be as
Kevin Myers wrote:
Hi Kelly,
I understand your basic points, but...
Admittedly, the Windows command prompt (not simply Explorer) is less capable
than most *nix command shells. However, there are also a very large number
of Windows based GIMP users, and one of the requirements of GIMP 2.x is
Kelly Martin ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Kevin Myers wrote:
Admittedly, the Windows command prompt (not simply Explorer) is less
capable than most *nix command shells. However, there are also a
very large number of Windows based GIMP users, and one of the
requirements of GIMP 2.x is that
Hi Kelly,
Though I basically agree with your opinion of the inferior Windows command
shell, IMHO that doesn't excuse important GIMP features from being
completely inoperable under Windows. Inconvenient is one thing, impossible
another. I can appreciate your strong desire to avoid a kludge
Simon Budig writes:
If a windows user really needs scripting, I'd recommend to install
e.g. a bash.
True, but doesn't necessarily help. The Win32 process invokation API
(CreateProcess()) doesn't use a argument vector like Unix does. It
uses a command line. The argv that a C or C+++ main()
Hi Carol,
I/we are already users and contributors to the ImageMagick and
GraphicsMagick projects as well as the GIMP. Both of those programs and the
GIMP have certain key strengths and weaknesses with respect to each other,
such that they are certainly not direct substitutes in *many* respects.
27 matches
Mail list logo
