On Thu, 2004-02-05 at 16:14, pcg@xxxxxxxx wrote: > 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. I agree that we should have a "standard gimp scripting language" but nothing prevents us from having it in a separate package on which The GIMP depends on being installed - just as we depend on GTK+ being installed (and just as we will depend on GEGL being installed in a not too distant future). I believe the project would benefit from splitting stuff like script-fu, python-fu etc. out from the main source module into their own. Why? To make the GIMP source code more modular. IMO, modularity means easier to maintain, easier to grok for new developers - and the beauty of it all: a much better separation between the different modules. ./Brix -- Henrik Brix Andersen <brix@xxxxxxxx>
