On Wed, Feb 26, 2003 at 07:53:31PM +0100, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > I would prefer if people who could know it better would stop
> > claiming such bullshit. The perl-syntax is well-documented, and even
> > if you insist on using the rather idiotic PDB-syntax, it does work.
>
> sorry, I heard that it wouldn't work and I remembered the PDB explorer
> to document the "rather idiotic" PDB-syntax.
Well, sure, but even if you believed that there was no reason to write
what you wrote. So what are you sorry for? You do that in about every mail
that has something to do with perl, in case you didn't realize it.
> > The only solution is to avoid script-fu whereever possible. It has been
> > horribly buggy since many years (I don't remember it being working
> > ever).
>
> I don't remember to have seen a bug-report about this.
I think it gets reported here or on gimp-user every few months since at
least 2000. You probably ignored it because there is often perl code
in it, and it's easy to dismiss it as yet another perl problem. It's
basically become a FAQ even.
> meantime. I'm not sure however if we will ever manage to fix all
> Script-Fu problems since it has indeed some rather fundamental flaws.
That's true, and I can fully understand that. What I cannot understand is
why you reflect these problems on perl again and again.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
