Hello, On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 11:22 PM, Alchemie fotografiche <fotocomics@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > I believe there are some "artificial" limitation to the potential of script fu, derived by the exigence to "categorize " the scripts in 2 main categories: > "Previous toolbox-scripts" that create a new imagine > "imagine script" that should modify the active imagine I want to make this clear: In English language 'create a new imagine' is nonsense. imagine is a verb, as in 'I imagine I am eating a juicy watermelon'; it's an action, not a thing. 'image' is the noun, you can 'create a new image' or 'modify the active image'; All of the instances I have seen where you used the word 'imagine', 'image' was the appropriate word. Personally, I often find your use of 'imagine' confusing, so I think you could improve the readability of your posts and how many people respond by making this change. > > I suppose that division had some reasons to be with the old gimp layout. > > But now ,after Gimp 2.4 i cannot imagine any reason to maintain such "artificial" distinction. > > "artificial" because a script may do both and more > Same script may work on the active layer,and/or create a new layer, and/or create a new imagine... > Stressing the point , in general a good flexible script SHOULD do more, allowing to chose most logic input (except for "render" script" )and the output options > > As now if a script is classified as "image script" users may overlook the fact that may also create a new imagine , because imagine scripts are not supposed to do that > > As now a good and flexible script that can output on a new imagine, Or/and in a new layer of the active imagine or/and on the active layer or drawable will be always erroneously classified since there is not yet in Gimp a script category as "Good scripts without unneeded artificial limitations " > > That is mostly evident with all the "Logos" and "alpha to logo " scripts > > 2 Groups of almost identical scripts with same names > (I may assure here that most users will notice only 1 group, and ignore the other. > or if by chance someone will notice the other group will believe that a different link for the same identical function since the names are identical) > > Solve that chaos of the "Logos" -"Alpha to Logo" script may be become much easier if there is a commune agreement that a "LOGO_RELATED" script should > allow to output the result > > 1) as new imagine > (with a option to have Transparency as background ... not only a solid color as now) > > 2) as new layer(s) pasted on the active imagine > > 3) as modification of the active layer > > 4) any combination of the options above > > > > This at least for the scripts to be bundled in Gimp, then the authors of extra scripts have obviously the freedom to offer less options if they wish, but they will get no more artificial limitation to the potential of their scripts..and no more the risk to have their script mis-categorized > > (again limitation are more for users then for the scripts...if a script is a Imagine-script is supposed no to to create a new imagine, so most users will not look for such option even if available) This is true. Personally I ignore script-fu.. There are some useful script-fu scripts, but most scripts seem to be about things like rendering logos, which is something I'll never use. > > > please consider that i am not expert in script fu, i wrote only 2 scripts and that was possible only with a great help. > > But somehow i felt this a point to be discussed, if solved i believe also many usability issues of the Gimp "Logos" and "Alpha to logo" scripts may be solved much more easily (hopefully merging the 2 groups ) In theory, your idea sounds like a good improvement. As I said, I don't use this 'logo generating' type of script, so someone else who does might be able to offer you more useful feedback. David _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
