> Sven Neumann wrote: > > "script-fu-save-all-images" is a name in the script-fu namespace. This > namespace should be kept for scripts that are distributed with > Script-Fu. It would be safer to call your script for example > "saulgoode-save-all-images". If we ever added a script called > "script-fu-save-all-images" to GIMP, your script would not clash with > it.
Thanks again for the information. It is a very reasonable policy of which I was unaware. From what I have seen, the vast majority of third-party Script-fu authors also are unaware of this and there is a Script-fu tutorial on GIMP.org which recommends using the "script-fu-" namespace (see below). There is currently a fairly extensive effort ongoing to update older scripts to assure compatibility with the TinyScheme-based interpreter. Would you recommend that these updates be encouraged to avoid the "script-fu-" namespace? If so, can we perhaps recommend a namespace convention for third-party scripts that might be more standardized? While using the script author's name as a base for the namespace would solve conflicts, perhaps we could also suggest a prefix to that so that third-party scripts would be easily recognized and grouped within the PDB browser (e.g., using "sf-author-" as a namespace). ========================== http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-using-script-fu-tutorial-first-script.html 3.4.4. Naming Conventions ... It's GIMP convention to name your script functions script-fu-abc, because then when they're listed in the procedural database, they'll all show up under script-fu when you're listing the functions. This also helps distinguish them from plug-ins. _______________________________________________ Gimp-user mailing list [email protected] https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user
