On Sun, Mar 21, 2004 at 03:32:08PM -0600, Kevin Myers wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Manish Singh" <yosh@xxxxxxxx> > Sent: Sunday, March 21, 2004 2:48 PM > > <snip> > > > FWIW, the suggestion was ill-researched. (foo image=bar) is so very very > > un-Scheme like, which is surprising to hear from someone who has > apparently > > written scripts from scratch. It pays to be versed in the language you're > > dealing with. > > I stand appropriately chastised. However, in my defense, I don't write > script-fu every day (in fact haven't tried to write any in almost a year > now, primarily due to the command line execution issues that I mentioned). > Seems like Carol could have simply said that my propsal was too > un-scheme-like (as Kelly did), and left it at that. I readily admitted in > my opening statements *before* offering the suggestion that it might not be > applicable. Would've been better to do some research before posting at all. > > Except there are a number of ways already to workaround the deficiencies > > of the windows shell. Even if --batch - is broken, you could always save > > a script out to a file, put it in the scripts dir, and call it from the > > command line. > > Yosh, you say that there are a number of ways to work around the Windows > shell limitations, and maybe there are, but up to this point nobody proposed > one that would work in my scenario. And several folks who are much more > knowledgeable about the gimp and script-fu than I am participated in the > previous discussion. A number of possible suggestions were made, but all > failed for one reason or another. If the approach that you are suggesting > now would work, then that's great, but we all simply missed it before, and I > guarantee you that Sven and Tor and the other folks who were involved in > those prior discussions are not ignorant. It's just that this solution is > not particularly obvious or straight-forward or elegant or easy to use. > > Let's make sure that I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly. Is it as > follows: Write a second script that calls my original script, and embed the > necessary parameter values in the new script? If that is correct, then yes, > I might be able to write a Windows batch file that would take my command > line options and write out the necessary line(s) to the new script file, > then execute the new script file. And, I appreciate your suggestion. I > just wish that this had come up a year ago when I was trying to get this to > work. Still, wouldn't you agree that the requirement for this level of > workaround under Windows is somewhat undesirable, even given a reasonable > level of Linux bias? Well, first see if gimp --batch - works. If it does, then I don't think that's too much of a big deal to do instead of command line parameters. If it doesn't, then it should be fixed. But yes, you interpreted my suggestion accurately. > > It's also better to research your suggestions a little, so that they don't > > sound completely out there, thereby reinforcing the viewpoint that Windows > > users are clueless. > > Yes, admittedly that is true whenever possible. However, sometimes when you > are extremely busy with other tasks and don't have an opportunity to do the > desired level of research, it is better to raise a possibly false alarm than > it is to let a potential issue go by unnoticed. That seems especially true > regarding Windows related issues, since most of the gimp contributors are > Linux based, and might accidentally overlook something that could have an > adverse effect on Windows usage. Doesn't that seem reasonable? If it's important to you, you'll do the 10 mins of research and critical thinking needed. You raised your issue about quoting problems, but then you had time to follow up with a completely out there suggestion. So the "too busy" argument doesn't really fly. It's not like we're planning on making any changes related to this near term, so I don't see the urgency. > Finally, wouldn't you also agree that it is better to be polite when > rejecting someone else's well intentioned suggestions, than to respond in > the extremely arrogant and insulting manner of Carol's replies to the > newsgroup? Well, you brought up windows vs. *nix, when the issue is how Scheme works. Perhaps you should've tried to understand the problem better. -Yosh
