On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 07:35:08PM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
currently, and go beyond that with a full gtk and gimp binding. The
same should be done for python (I have plans to do this) and perl, the
idea being having languages besides C that can use the entire gimp API.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 08:35:04AM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
On Sun, Feb 08, 2004 at 07:35:08PM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
currently, and go beyond that with a full gtk and gimp binding. The
same should be done for python (I have plans to do this) and perl, the
idea
Hi,
Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh sure, out of all the bindings, perl comes closest by far to full
coverage. But iirc it doesn't wrap libgimpcolor, libgimpmath, some
of libgimpwidgets, and libgimpthumb.
We will have to make the libgimp APIs more language binding friendly
then.
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 11:58:15AM +0100, Sven Neumann wrote:
Hi,
Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Oh sure, out of all the bindings, perl comes closest by far to full
coverage. But iirc it doesn't wrap libgimpcolor, libgimpmath, some
of libgimpwidgets, and libgimpthumb.
We
On Mon, Feb 09, 2004 at 12:53:40AM -0800, Manish Singh [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Oh sure, out of all the bindings, perl comes closest by far to full coverage.
But iirc it doesn't wrap libgimpcolor, libgimpmath, some of libgimpwidgets,
and libgimpthumb.
Ah yes, I haven't looked into the new
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 04:14:10PM +0100, Marc A. Lehmann wrote:
Simons agruments, however, smell a lot of standard gimp extension
language, because his goal is to have one language that is always pat
of gimp, which would effectively be a standard. I don't think that's a
bad idea at all,
Hi,
Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Include a GUILE in the Gimp sourcecode, make sure that it doesn't
conflict with other GUILEs on the target system and use it as the GIMPs
default language. Perfectly fine with me as long as I have a language
that is guaranteed to be available for 99% of the
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Include a GUILE in the Gimp sourcecode, make sure that it doesn't
conflict with other GUILEs on the target system and use it as the GIMPs
default language. Perfectly fine with me as long as I have a language
that is guaranteed to be available
Hi,
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'm with Simon - at least one scripting language installation's a good
idea. We might assume that perl or python are more or less universally
available, but we can certainly not assume that guile is always
installed. Given the fact that script-fu has
Dave Neary ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
We might assume that perl or python are more or less universally
available, [...]
Please note that this definitely is wrong. We have a Windows user base
and they most probably don't have Perl or Python installed. Otherwise I
wouldn't bring this topic up.
Hello,
Sven Neumann wrote:
It's just a packaging issue. As long as we make sure that everyone can
install gimp-script-fu, we have script-fu support. Do you really want
to continue to include it with GIMP with all the problems that arise
from doing that? I don't think it's worth it.
Including
Ooops, that should have been gone to the ML as well...
Sven Neumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Simon Budig [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Include a GUILE in the Gimp sourcecode, make sure that it doesn't
conflict with other GUILEs on the target system and use it as the GIMPs
default language.
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:06:58PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think we should do that simply because I don't see what is so
important about having a self-contained scripting language. I'd rather
like to see three or four well-maintained and working scripting
languages
[EMAIL PROTECTED] ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:
On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:06:58PM +0100, Sven Neumann [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think we should do that simply because I don't see what is so
important about having a self-contained scripting language. I'd rather
like to see three or four
Hi,
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Including guile doesn't mean supporting it. As it is, there are a
bunch of things we include that don't get much support because the
original authors have gone their own way. This time we're not even
talking about *pretending* that this is a GIMP
On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 16:14, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Simons agruments, however, smell a lot of standard gimp extension
language, because his goal is to have one language that is always pat
of gimp, which would effectively be a standard. I don't think that's a
bad idea at all, especially when
Hi,
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Actually, most GIMP users probably get their GIMP from Jernej - OK -
the GNU/Linux side of things gives us a nice big install base on
Linux, but proportionately very few Linux people actually *use* the
GIMP. I'd guess that the majority of our power
Hi,
Sven Neumann wrote:
Dave Neary [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I'd guess that the majority of our power users are on Win32.
Are there any numbers you can base this statement on?
No, it's a guess.
Not that it would matter much but I doubt
there are more Win32 GIMP users than Linux GIMP users.
Daniel Rogers ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Simon Budig wrote:
IMHO we should have at least one language where we can rely on the
availability on *every* gimp installation. Basically this is impossible
to guarantee for all languages that are packaged separately (like Perl,
Python and Guile as
On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 04:48, Sven Neumann wrote:
Well, it is not only used as a menu-path but also as a (short)
description. Basically, Script-Fu is a mess. Wouldn't you want to
rewrite it? We keep looking for someone who wants to redo Script-Fu
for quite a while already.
Looking at that
Hi,
Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Tue, 2004-02-03 at 04:48, Sven Neumann wrote:
Well, it is not only used as a menu-path but also as a (short)
description. Basically, Script-Fu is a mess. Wouldn't you want to
rewrite it? We keep looking for someone who wants to redo Script-Fu
Sven Neumann wrote:
All of this would probably be best solved by redoing Script-Fu using a
full-featured and actively maintained Scheme implementation.
Might I suggest Guile?
http://www.gnu.org/software/guile/guile.html
It seems almost ready made to be stuck into the gimp.
--
Dan
In regard to: Re: [Gimp-developer] Misnamed structure element in SFScript...:
All of this would probably be best solved by redoing Script-Fu using a
full-featured and actively maintained Scheme implementation.
Years ago, there was talk of switching to Guile, since that's what the
GNU people were
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 05:30:19PM -0600, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know any good reasons why Guile would be an inappropriate
choice for replacing SIOD?
As far as I remember, it was because it adds a rather big dependency, and
people thought that gimp should come with at
Marc Lehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 05:30:19PM -0600, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know any good reasons why Guile would be an inappropriate
choice for replacing SIOD?
As far as I remember, it was because it adds a rather big dependency, and
Simon Budig wrote:
Marc Lehmann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Tue, Feb 03, 2004 at 05:30:19PM -0600, Tim Mooney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does anyone know any good reasons why Guile would be an inappropriate
choice for replacing SIOD?
As far as I remember, it was because it adds a rather big
Daniel Rogers [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
As far as I remember, it was because it adds a rather big dependency, and
people thought that gimp should come with at least one script interpreter
on it's own.
(These are not my arguments, I just repeat what I think was one of the
bigger points back
Hi,
Michael Natterer [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I agree 100% with everything Daniel said. SIOD is unmaintained crap
from the stone age. We should ditch it and use guile instead.
I think the best approach will be to develop a Script-Fu replacement
based on Guile (or another interpreter)
28 matches
Mail list logo