See below...
----- Original Message -----
From: "Manish Singh" <yosh@xxxxxxxx>
To: <gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 7:11 PM
Subject: Re: PDB named and default parameters (was Re: [Gimp-developer]
TheMark Shuttleworth offer)
> On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 01:34:02AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> > Manish Singh (yosh@xxxxxxxx) wrote:
> > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2004 at 12:58:25AM +0100, Simon Budig wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > > Again there is the problem of differeniating between positional
> > > and named usage.
> >
> > Ok, thinking some more about it: What about using symbols as parameter
> > identifiers?
> >
> > (script-fu-foo-bar 'image image
> > 'drawable drawable
> > 'radius 5.5
> > 'size 300)
> >
> > passing symbols to the PDB doesn't make sense, so this could be used
> > to differentiate.
>
> That's a good idea. Unless there's some other standard way of handling
> this in scheme (anyone?) this sounds good to me.
>
> -Yosh
I may be completely out in left field, so feel free to correct me if my
comments are off the mark...
I am worried that Sven's proposal may case some problems. I am
uncomfortable with using a syntax that depends on what many languages and
operating environments would consider to be unbalanced single quotes. I am
worried that these could end up causing great difficulties for example, when
starting the gimp with a script-fu script and related parameters from the
command line, on either *nix, or especially under Windows. Does anyone else
agree this could be a serious problem, or can someone essentially guarantee
that it isn't?
s/KAM
