On Thu, Feb 05, 2004 at 01:06:58PM +0100, Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I don't think we should do that simply because I don't see what is so
> important about having a self-contained scripting language. I'd rather
> like to see three or four well-maintained and working scripting
> languages that can be installed separately. If we can make sure that
> the language extensions work and can be easily installed that should
> be good enough then.
I think this is already reality, as most people will get gimp from a
gnu/linux distribution and many if not most of them will ship these
extensions as seperate packages already.
(and the rest should easily be prepared to deal with installing things
from source).
To me it's all a matter of the installer.
Simons agruments, however, smell a lot of "standard gimp extension
language", because his goal is to have one language that is always pat
of gimp, which would effectively be a standard. I don't think that's a
bad idea at all, especially when we later think of macro recording and
other tasks, where we _will_ need some standardized macro language that
should be easy to translate into real scripts.
--
-----==- |
----==-- _ |
---==---(_)__ __ ____ __ Marc Lehmann +--
--==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ / pcg@xxxxxxxx |e|
-=====/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\ XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation |
|
