Hi, On Wed, 2006-09-27 at 15:27 +0200, Raphaël Quinet wrote: > You mentioned last week that you wouldn't be against switching to > Tiny-Fu in 2.4 if the remaining problems (mainly the namespace issues) > could be solved in time. It looks like Kevin had been previously > discouraged from fixing these problems because there were > communication problems between you and him. But now he has taken the > time to work on these changes: you will notice that Tiny-Fu can now > read *.scm scripts instead of *.sct. I suppose that it will not take > long until Tiny-Fu can process most Script-Fu scripts unmodified > (e.g., handling script-fu-register and so on). Kevin should then tell us about this. He has not been discouraged to do those changes. I rather had the impression that he didn't want to do those changes because he seemed to have a different vision for tiny-fu. I believe that he doesn't want it to replace Script-Fu but I am willing to change my mind if he declares that this is the goal. We can then discuss the timeframe and implementation details of such a change. Sven _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
