Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-02-02 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Another way to look at this is from he point of view of help/documentation. Someone has to create information somewhere that documents the constants used for plug-ins (whether they be C-based, Script-Fu, or Perl). Are you talking about the API docs

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-30 Thread pcg
On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 12:27:44PM -0500, Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is the - vs _ use in function names by C vs. Script-Fu historical (as in typical of the respective languages)? Yupp. values for plug-ins based on different languages? DB Browser shows GIMP_RGB_IMAGE for an

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-30 Thread Kevin Cozens
At 09:01 AM 01/30/2004, Marc Lehmann wrote: Just FYI, perl uses the enums.pl from the gimp core which lists all the enums. It does, however, do this: $const =~ s/^GIMP_//; i.e.., strip the GIMP_-prefix, so the contants are the names with _ (easier to type in perl than -), but withouth the

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-30 Thread pcg
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:57:32AM -0500, Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: i.e.., strip the GIMP_-prefix, so the contants are the names with _ (easier to type in perl than -), but withouth the prefixes. Looks like a third set to me. A third set? I was afraid that might be the case.

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-30 Thread Kevin Cozens
On Fri, 2004-01-30 at 13:06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 11:57:32AM -0500, Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: A third set? I was afraid that might be the case. Well, a set extremely similar and in-sync (at least loosely) to the C contants, so while technically

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-30 Thread pcg
On Fri, Jan 30, 2004 at 02:19:56PM -0500, Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: regardless of plug-in language. On the other hand, if you want to create a new image using an indexed palette its easier to remember to use GIMP_INDEXED_IMAGE rather than 4 or was that INDEXED_IMAGE, or

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-29 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm also raising issue also because I thought that one of the goals for the 2.0 release is to simplify/tidy-up some things. Having more consistency in the enums used (regardless of language used for a plug-in/script and ignore - vs _ issues) makes

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-29 Thread Kevin Cozens
At 12:45 PM 01/29/2004, Sven wrote: What are you advocating instead? Perhaps I just missed something but I have not been able to figure out what change you are proposing. The issue you raise has been around forever and it seems that so far you are the first one to find it disturbing enough to talk

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-29 Thread Sven Neumann
Hi, Kevin Cozens [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: For example, if I look in DB Browser for creating a new image, one of the enums shown for argument type is GIMP_RGB_IMAGE. So, since I know for Script-Fu scripts I use - in place of _, I would use GIMP-RGB-IMAGE. When I try running a script with

Re: [Gimp-developer] Re: Bug 132698 - Script-Fu constants vs DB Browser

2004-01-29 Thread Kevin Cozens
At 04:06 PM 01/29/2004, you wrote: So the easiest solution would be to make script-fu accept the enums with or without prefix. That would be the easiest solution and maintains compatibility with existing scripts. The point is that it is already way too late to do any major incompatible change.