Manish Singh (yosh@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 10:50:23AM +0200, dov@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > On Fri, Mar 19, 2004 at 08:56:36AM +0100, Henrik Brix Andersen wrote:
> > [stuff deleted]
> > >
> > > The only thing that struck me as missing was the work involved with
> > > porting the plug-ins to the new API, but Rapha?l already pointed that
> > > out in another reply to this thread.
> >
> > I very much hope that at least this time around, since so much is anyhow
> > changed, the PDB will finally get the face lift and use named parameters
> > instead of positional ones.
>
> A PDB revamp is planned.
>
> While on that subject, I'm wondering what a good way of representing
> named parameters in scheme and perl would be. Any thoughts?
Hmm, isn't there a perl-way to do named parameters? I bet there is (but
I don't know about it).
After a quick search on google the following seems to be "standard":
gimp_perl_foo_bar (-image => image,
-drawable => drawable,
-radius => 5.5,
-size => 300);
For scheme we could do something like this:
(script-fu-foo-bar '("image" image)
'("drawable" drawable)
'("radius" 5.5)
'("size" 300))
or (less clutter)
(script-fu-foo-bar "image" image
"drawable" drawable
"radius" 5.5
"size" 300)
that having said: I don't have much experience with scheme outside
script fu, so there might be a convention out there on how to do named
parameters.
Bye,
Simon
--
Simon.Budig@xxxxxxxxxxx http://www.home.unix-ag.org/simon/
