Wouldn't it be more natural to write the migration program in Python
itself (plus this needs Python2->Python3 migration)? Why add a
dependency on yet another language? Is there a decent C# runtime on Linux?
On 24/08/2021 17:31, ShiroYuki Mot via gimp-developer-list wrote:
I wrote the Script File Migration Program.
It was used by MS Visual Studio C#.
The target is to migrate the simple and basic scripts to the new API 3 in
GIMP 2.99 (GIMP 3).
Yes, Scheme and Python, both.
It is still Draft level yet.
Scheme file was almost done, but, Python file is not complete yet.
(No workable Python code has been generated yet. Need manual editings.)
Holding Items for Python. Can it be run on L
1. class - Parameters (__gproperties__ = {)
2. class - def do_create_procedure - procedure.add_argument_from_property
3. pdb calling conversion ... not set out. Maybe, I know how to write.
4. old procedure arguments migration
On Python,
The formatted/migration-based sources are created from the official
'foggify.py' .
The qualified phrases using "<<term>>" replace by a value obtained from the
old code.
Here is Questions.
1. Can write PF_COLOR/PF_SPINNER/etc. block like a 'str/float' style in
'__gproperties__ = {' at class ?
2. Is the Class name the Camel-style except "_" ?
ex. python-fu-shiro-migration-test-210 > ShiroMigrationTest210
3. Can the procedure definition name include "_"?
(4th arg at 'procedure = Gimp.ImageProcedure.new' of 'def
do_create_procedure(self, name)')
ex. def shiromigrationtest210 > ? def shiro_migration_test_210 OK?
Initially, the development language was VB.net.
As a possibility in the future, if I publish the source code (or
project/solution) and expect other people to participate, I thought that C#
was more versatile, so I wrote it by C#, which I am not used to.
We, the beginner level GIMP scripting users, are referring to the Procedure
Browser.
So, I think there are many cases that there are a lot of pdb.xxx calling
sentences in the file.
In this case, I feel that visibility deteriorates because there are the new
multiple lines per the old syntax line by the migration.
Maybe, it is better that using not pdb calling but Gimp command (Gimp class
?).
But currently there does not exist the comparison table/list for these.
I think it would be very useful if that will be provided.
.zip Inf.
FileName : GIMPscriptMigSupport_API2to3.v.0.8.1.15.zip
FileDate : 2021/08/24 23:09:04 ( or * Downloaded Date * )
FileSize : 193099 (189KB)
MD5 : 318f7a7002a44550188d630c9cd48cfa
SHA1 : 2e6390231b13f39b4d20f81e70003641cbadf499
FileName : API_Inf/RemovedFunctions_Replacement_GIMP3.txt <- in zip
FileName : GIMPscriptMigSupport_API2to3.exe <- in zip
FileName : GIMPscriptMigSupport_API2to3.exe.config <- in zip
FileName : Ref_Inf/GIMP_Enums.txt <- in zip
FileName : Ref_Inf/Py3_Import.txt <- in zip
FileName : Ref_Inf/Py3_Registration.txt <- in zip
GIMPscriptMigSupport_API2to3.v.0.8.1.15.zip
<https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lV3W73fYz8B31uyckk9yXWBLmau3TLrz/view?usp=drive_web>
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
_______________________________________________
gimp-developer-list mailing list
List address: gimp-developer-list@xxxxxxxxx
List membership: https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer-list
List archives: https://mail.gnome.org/archives/gimp-developer-list
