Hi,
On Fri, 2007-02-02 at 03:56 -0800, Saul Goode wrote:
I have a rough draft of some of the differences between SIOD-fu. It is
not yet comprehensive but perhaps it might be useful as a starting point.
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:01:16 +0100, Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:33:40 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is also problems with the way changes broke the interface
with gimp=print, amongst other things. Gimp 2.3 is still seriously
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:35:59 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 16 Feb 2007 13:01:16 +0100, Robert L Krawitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:33:40 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is also problems with the way changes broke the
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 03:32, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:35:59 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Well, the actual story is that Gutenprint 5.0 includes its own Print
plugin for the GIMP that replaces the one in GIMP 2.2. The best thing
to do is to
On Tue, 20 Feb 2007 19:26:30 +0100, Hal V. Engel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
On Tuesday 20 February 2007 03:32, Robert L Krawitz wrote:
Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2007 10:35:59 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
snip
Well, the actual story is that Gutenprint 5.0 includes its own Print
plugin for
On Fri, 2007-02-16 at 09:33 +0100, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing that concerns me with Gimp development in general and of which
these changes are a good example is lack of concern for backwards
compatability.
A lot of people have contributed in one way or another to gimp over time
On Friday, February 16, 2007, 10:36:14, Michael Natterer wrote:
What interface change do you mean? The plug-in API and ABI are
supposed to be backward-compatible. Any incompatibility you find is
a bug that will be fixed.
I'm guessing 1.2 - 2.0.
--
Jernej Simončič
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2007 09:33:40 +0100
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There is also problems with the way changes broke the interface
with gimp=print, amongst other things. Gimp 2.3 is still seriously
unfinished as far as the print dlg goes yet it seems I still cannot
use gutenprint
Alexander Rabtchevich 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.
If you have a script that crashes GIMP, you should post it somewhere so it can
be examined. No script should be able to kill
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?
Global variables can lead to bugs if not used carefully. The use of global
variables in Script-Fu is particularly bad since all scripts
Sven Neumann wrote:
If I understood Kevin correctly the long-term goal for Tiny-Fu is to
start the interpreter on demand for each script that is executed. So at
some point scripts will behave more like plug-ins.
That is one of the goals I have in mind for the Script-Fu plug-in.
--
Cheers!
I have a rough draft of some of the differences between SIOD-fu. It is
not yet comprehensive but perhaps it might be useful as a starting point.
http://flashingtwelve.brickfilms.com/GIMP/Scripts/Script-fu-2/Reference/SIODdifferences-0.1.txt
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 12:53 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 12:53 -0800, Akkana Peck wrote:
If someone can make a quick comprehensive list, I'd be happy
to help with getting it into a more readable form, if that's the
issue. I don't know enough about the changes to make the list myself:
I know what I've done to convert a few
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:55 +0200, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
So if the scripts were loaded dynamically on demand:
If I understood Kevin correctly the long-term goal for Tiny-Fu is to
start the interpreter on demand for each script that is executed. So at
some point scripts will behave
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 08:24:40 +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 09:11 +0200, Alexander Rabtchevich wrote:
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.
Some more thoughts on local variables in scheme from a newbie POV.
Due to a parenthesis syntaxes of variable declaration area, if variable
x is declared before variable y and y is declared before x is dropped, x
remains active at least until y is dropped.
(let (x 1)
...
(let (y 2)
;x is
On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 16:06:00 +0200, Alexander Rabtchevich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Some more thoughts on local variables in scheme from a newbie POV.
Due to a parenthesis syntaxes of variable declaration area, if variable
x is declared before variable y and y is declared before x is
Raphaël, this IS exactly my point! Why should the global variables be
prohibited if there is no difference in memory consumption with local
ones, only additional efforts to a programmer to track all parenthesis.
The common namespace is the other problem - it is due the luck of
interpreter usage
Alexander Rabtchevich ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Raphaël, this IS exactly my point! Why should the global variables be
prohibited if there is no difference in memory consumption with local
ones, only additional efforts to a programmer to track all parenthesis.
Because global variables are
Hi,
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:22 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
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
Sven Neumann writes:
On Tue, 2007-01-30 at 08:22 +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
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
Date: Tue, 30 Jan 2007 17:24:59 +0200
From: Alexander Rabtchevich [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Raphaël, this IS exactly my point! Why should the global variables
be prohibited if there is no difference in memory consumption with
local ones, only additional efforts to a programmer to track all
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
29 matches
Mail list logo
