Hi David!
On Thu, Jul 01, 2004 at 10:35:09PM +0200, David Odin wrote:
I just wanted to thanks every one who's came to the Guadec-2004 in
Kristiansand. It really has been a great time meeting you, and I was
kind of proud assisting to our meeting with many of the great names of
the Gimp.
Same
Hello,
I am currently working on a script-fu to provide previews of the more popular
plug-ins with varying parameters. The script takes a list of images
(blur.png, iir.png, rle.png, despeckle.png etc.), applies the respective
plug-in with varying parameters and writes blur1.png, blur2.png,
(define (blur-file) (set! return blur.png))
but that would not (really?) allow constructs like:
file_for_blur: blur.png
file_for_blur: blur_changed_my_mind_use_this_instead_but_keep_other_too.png
file_for_blur: use_yet_another.png
You mean like (define blur-file blur.png)?
Moreover, does
Hi,
On Thu, 2004-07-01 at 23:47, Niklas wrote:
[snip]
So on to the topic of this mail. At the first meeting we discussed the
website and who to contact about things conserning the site, I said that
I was willing to give it all a try and try to bring things up again.
Because of this proposal
(define blur-file blur.png)
(define blur-file otherblur.png)
Different versions of Scheme handle this differently. I do not know if this is
proper Gimp-scheme (re-defining a defined variable), or if one would have to
use set! for the second definition/assignment. Incidently, no script-fu
(define (blur-file) (set! return blur.png))
but that would not (really?) allow constructs like:
file_for_blur: blur.png
file_for_blur:
blur_changed_my_mind_use_this_instead_but_keep_other_too.png
file_for_blur: use_yet_another.png
You mean like (define blur-file blur.png)?
Yes
I don't know officially, but it seems that with any definition of
define, you can define it first, and then set! it everywhere else. Even
if your first define is
(define blur-file '())
Yes, and what's more, one can also use set! alone (without a preceding
define). I do not know if this is
