On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 08:46:55AM -0700, William Skaggs wrote:

Giles wrote:

I don't think the list can afford to lose the input of either one of you.

I wouldn't worry too much about it. Compared to flame-fests of the past, this one is pretty much a yawner. At least they're arguing about questions of fact.

-- Bill

"The one advantage of playing with fire, is that one never gets even singed. It is the people who don't know how to play with it who get burned up."

-- Oscar Wilde, "A Woman of No Importance"

it does smell of agreement between the two of them. if it were less boring of an interchange, i could pull the real conversation out from between the lines and any one who has been respectfully following the list for a while can do this easily as well.

completely off-thread, i would like to see the way mr. lehmann has the menu structure set in his own personal instance of gimp. i say this because i really liked the changes that installing gimp-perl makes to the Xtns menu. gimp-perl tried to make the scripting environment invisible to the user a very very long time ago. including the pdl (a long time ago) foiled this attempt. i accidentally perpetuated this when i made an updated python image instead of asking that the image in the dialog be removed.

carol

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 11:20:44AM -0700, Carol Spears wrote:

completely off-thread, i would like to see the way mr. lehmann has the menu structure set in his own personal instance of gimp.

I never ever changed the menu structure compared to the cvs/source releases, and I always run in the C locale.

the Xtns menu. gimp-perl tried to make the scripting environment invisible to the user a very very long time ago.

If you mean that I didn't make a separate Perl subhierarchy like script-fu does (or did), then yes, this I did because I believed that a user must not be forced to learn the difference between a C/Script-Fu/python/perl/whatever plug-in. It makes no difference, as long as it does what it states it would do.

I still believe that making language-specific menus is a disservice to users. It's only use is for marketing of the language in question ("oh, so it's in script-fu!"). But such ideas were and probably are unpopular within a community that prejuduices some languages over others.

pcg@goof.com ( Marc) (A.) (Lehmann ) wrote:

If you mean that I didn't make a separate Perl subhierarchy like script-fu does (or did), then yes, this I did because I believed that a user must not be forced to learn the difference between a C/Script-Fu/python/perl/whatever plug-in. It makes no difference, as long as it does what it states it would do.

I still believe that making language-specific menus is a disservice to users. It's only use is for marketing of the language in question ("oh, so it's in script-fu!"). But such ideas were and probably are unpopular within a community that prejuduices some languages over others.

You didn't miss the current efforts or restructuring the menus, did you?

HTH, Michael

On Tue, Jun 21, 2005 at 09:28:56PM +0200, Michael Schumacher wrote:

I still believe that making language-specific menus is a disservice to users. It's only use is for marketing of the language in question ("oh, so it's in script-fu!"). But such ideas were and probably are unpopular within a community that prejuduices some languages over others.

You didn't miss the current efforts or restructuring the menus, did you?

I very likely did miss them. That's why I wrote "as script fu does (or did)" because I am not that well-informed about future menu plans. Not even about the current cvs menus.

If it coincides with what I stated as my goals and preferences then just the better...

(Please note that I was asked a specific question and gave a specific answer. I did not criticise current or future plans).