Hi,
Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Script-Fu scripts written for GIMP 1.2 won't work under GIMP 2.x
without some changes due mainly to differences in the API. In what
version of GIMP would it be possible to have the compatibility
features of Tiny-Fu removed?
The next time we release
Hi,
Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really want a compatibility-switch. Instead, old Script-Fu
scripts should be updated so they do things the way they are supposed
to be done in Scheme rather than how the old SIOD interpreter let
script writers get away with some things (ie.
At 06:00 AM 07/10/2004, Sven wrote:
Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I don't really want a compatibility-switch. Instead, old Script-Fu
scripts should be updated so they do things the way they are supposed
to be done in Scheme rather than how the old SIOD interpreter let
script writers
By using vectors I was able to very quickly update the portion of those
scripts which used SIOD array functions. I have not changed the Tiny-Fu
marshalling code yet but I will do that soon and release a new tarball.
Now since there is essentially a one-to-one correspondence between Tiny-Fu's
At 01:38 PM 07/09/2004, you wrote:
Now since there is essentially a one-to-one correspondence between Tiny-Fu's
vectors and Script-Fu's arrays, it might be worth considering adding
compatibility definitions to init.scm (similar to gimpcompat.h for
plug-ins), that would, depending on a certain
At 08:09 PM 07/07/2004, Markus Triska wrote:
I also opt for vector because apart from being the natural Scheme equivalent
to PDB's one-dimensional arrays, it makes writing plug-ins easier for people
that have no to little practice in converting common for/while loops using
tail-recursion, and
On Wednesday 07 July 2004 05:05, Kevin Cozens wrote:
On Tue, 2004-07-06 at 19:45, Sven Neumann wrote:
The fact that the PDB uses arrays doesn't necessarily mean that a
language binding such as Tiny-Fu needs to represent them as arrays.
One of the most annoying bits of Script-Fu is that it
At 05:17 AM 07/07/2004, Shlomi Fish wrote:
Are you sure using lists instead of vectors is the right thing to do? Lists
are linked lists and as such accessing the i'th element is O(i). In vectors
it is O(1). This can cause an order of complexity increase in handling them.
No, I'm not sure. For the
Are you sure using lists instead of vectors is the right thing to do?
Lists are linked lists and as such accessing the i'th element is O(i). In
vectors it is O(1). This can cause an order of complexity increase in
handling them.
This is true, but not much of a problem, since most scripts
