> If it's important to you, you'll do the 10 mins of research and critical > thinking needed. Apparantly you could research this a whole lot faster than I can, which isn't surprising since you work with gimp development almost every day. It would probably take me more than that amount of time just to track down a valid link to the docs for the version of Scheme that the gimp actually uses, much less try to interpret it. > > 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. You have *no* idea. I've been putting in 18+ hour days for months on end, trying to keep my company above water. I posted these suggestions (and this note) in the down time while I am waiting for my computer to complete other tasks. > > It's not like we're planning on making any changes related to this near > term, so I don't see the urgency. The only urgency is this: I try to respond to things when I see them, when the potential for an issue occurs to me and while the topic is fresh on my mind. If I try to wait until later, then two bad things happen: 1) a lot of issues would get dropped, and more importantly 2) if I bring it up later then folks would claim that it was too late to change things and say why didn't you bring up your concerns sooner when this issue was being discussed? > > > 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. As mentioned, my concern was the command line syntax issue. I don't know all of the Scheme syntax rules. While I was writing my script with Scheme, I found it to be a very arcane language, with very little documentation available, *especially* for the apparantly outdated or non-standard version that the gimp seems to use. So, I thought that I should leave it up to the experts to decide whether my concerns or suggestions were valid, rather than trying to reach those conclusions on my own based on using either the wrong documentation, or misinterpreting the documentation due to being a neophyte with the language, especially considering the limited time that I had available. Finally, *far* too much time and bandwidth has already been wasted on this discussion for all concerned. If folks could have simply explained that my suggestion wouldn't work, rather than making inflammatory statements, then all of this excessive discussion could have been avoided. I've already decided not to respond to Carol's further emails (even though I would like to defend my position) in order to keep from dragging this out further. I now have some idea of your gripes against my input, and hopefully you now have some idea of why my input was provided in the manner that it was. I doubt that anything further can be accomplished. So, how about if we just drop this now, and give all of the other folks on the list a break? s/KAM
