On Thu, 05 Oct 2006 20:15:58 +0200, Sven Neumann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, 2006-10-05 at 10:10 +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > > From my point of view, Tiny-Fu is now ready to replace Script-Fu and I > > would like to encourage everybody to make the switch so that we can > > fix any remaining bugs. Considering that Tiny-Fu solves some real > > problems (i18n), the sooner we can do the switch, the better. [...] > Then, I would suggest that instead of ending maintainance of Script-Fu > that we switch the Scheme interpreter in Script-Fu to tiny-scheme. > Instead of removing our only platform independent language binding, we > should apply the changes that Kevin has done in the gimp-tiny-fu module > to the plug-ins/script-fu directory in the GIMP tree. [...]
Yes, that would be the best solution. In restrospect, I think that it was not such a great idea to encourage Kevin to develop Tiny-Fu in a separate module: although it provided a "safe sandbox" for experimenting with the new interpreter without disturbing the existing scripts, it resulted in a lot of duplicated efforts and the main negative effect was that many people did not even try Tiny-Fu and it slowed down the replacement of siod by tinyscheme. If you compare this with the Python code or even with the SoC projects that were started in separate branches, it is obvious that developing code inside the gimp module leads to a much faster adoption and creates less conflicts. I would have been better to encourage Kevin to use the tinyscheme interpreter in the gimp tree (probably in a branch). My suggestion to disable Script-Fu by default was basically made out of despair because I thought that you would not try Tiny-Fu otherwise. But if you agree to replace the interpreter, then that's even better. But anyway, let's wait for Kevin's comments... -Raphaël _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
