I tried to use the Perl-Fu scripts in 1.1.21 and I saw that all of them abort with the following error displayed on the console: ** ERROR (recursed) **: could not find handler for message: 65536 aborting... And this message is displayed in a pop-up box: [/path/to/script]: the gimp is using a newer version of the plug-in protocol than this plug-in. Marc, I suppose that you are aware of this and that you can fix it? I suppose that this was a consequence of the recent changes in the wire protocol. Hi Mitch! ;-) But I also noticed that something else has changed in the Perl-Fu scripts: in the previous versions that I tried (under Solaris), these scripts were always registered at the bottom of the menus, instead of being mixed with the C plug-ins. Now it seems to be the contrary: the Perl-Fu scripts are listed first in each menu, followed by the usual C plug-ins. This is very distracting. Would it be possible to avoid this? I would prefer to have the Perl-Fu scripts separated from the C plug-ins. Either by adding a separator in the menus, by adding a little mark next to their names, or by creating a separate Perl-Fu menu similar to the Script-Fu menu. I am asking for this on the list because I expect that many developers have different opinions about the placement of Perl-Fu scripts (or Python-Fu). I think that the Perl-Fu scripts "feel" different from the C plug-ins and it would be nice to know beforehand if an entry in a menu is mapped to a C or Perl plug-in. They behave slightly differently (e.g. undo is not always supported, there is a delay of a couple of seconds before the plug-in starts) and their parameters dialog have a different layout compared to most C plug-ins. I suppose that some of these differences (e.g. the Gimp-Perl logo in the dialogs) were introduced on purpose to make these scripts stand out from the others, but then why should they be mixed? I'm not asking for a vote or anything like that, but I would like to hear some opinions... (no flames please) -Raphael
