Sven Neumann wrote:
First of all, I would like to hear Kevin on this. I have asked him to tell us about his goals for Tiny-Fu and in order to evaluate this question, we absolutely need to know what the goals are.
My goals re: Tiny-Fu have never changed. See my reply to the "devel docs" thread.
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.
You suggested moving Script-Fu (and pygimp) in to a module outside of the GIMP source tree in 2004. If you currently prefer to keep Script-Fu in the main source tree and roll the Tiny-Fu changes in to the existing Script-Fu plug-in, that could be done. It would also avoid any issues relating to where Script-Fu bugs should be filed in Bugzilla.
> This should be a > relatively small change since it only involves replacing the Scheme > interpreter. The scripts itself and probably most of the UI code can be
left untouched.
Define small. ;-) It isn't all that bad but it may not be as small a change as you think. I have done a quick global search/replace on a copy of the Tiny-Fu source files so I could run a diff against Script-Fu.
I'm still reviewing the changes listed in the diff to come up with a patch file for the main set of changes to the Script-Fu source. At the moment, there are 9 files that will be altered, a tenth (siod-wrapper.c) should be renamed in addition to changes, the siod directory will be removed, three directories with source will be added, and a few Makefile will need to be updated.
I would suggest using the Tiny-Fu scripts as they are known to work with Tiny-Fu. The Script-Fu ones may work but I haven't tested them recently and don't particularly feel like going through the process of testing 95+ scripts (again). I would also prefer to use the Tiny-Fu I had made some of the globally defined functions in the script files local to functions in the script. This avoids conflicts between scripts that defined a function with the same name but may not have been identical. In addition, I reformatted the Tiny-Fu scripts which makes it easier to see the syntax of the language. IMO this makes them better as example scripts, and makes it easier for the new or casual Script-Fu writer to write or modify a script as they won't have to waste a ton of time counting brackets to find out where they missed one (or more) brackets.
> Development on Script-Fu can then continue as usual and
hopefully under the lead of Kevin and the tiny-fu CVS module has fulfilled its role and can be declared as merged and closed.
I don't plan on going anywhere. In the short term, I would be about the only one familiar with the TinyScheme portion of a new Script-Fu. The Tiny-Fu could probably be closed after a merge although I wonder if it might still have any value as a sandbox for work relating to version 2.
I will work on creating a TinyScheme based Script-Fu. I will want a clear "go ahead" from the core developer(s) before a TinyScheme based version of Script-Fu gets commited to the main GIMP source tree. Once a merge takes place we will be commited to using "Tiny-Fu" due mainly to the number of changes and the hassle it would be to back out all the changes.
-- Cheers! Kevin. http://www.interlog.com/~kcozens/ |"What are we going to do today, Borg?" Owner of Elecraft K2 #2172 |"Same thing we always do, Pinkutus: | Try to assimilate the world!" #include <disclaimer/favourite> | -Pinkutus & the Borg _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
