Re: [Inkscape-devel] Scheme Scripting Console
On Sun, 2007-08-12 at 18:47 -0500, Samuel A. Rebelsky wrote:
I'm the faculty member who supervises David and Soren's work. Thanks for your regular and rapid feedback on their work! I hope we'll find a way to get some Scheme scripting console into InkScape, even if it's not the one that they've written. Anyway, I thought I should respond to your two questions.
Great to meet you. I don't see any major barriers to using theirs, just a couple details we need to work out.
I don't have much to say about the document locking issue; if there's a better approach, I'm sure that they'd be happy to adopt it.
What would you guys think about building the patch without this? I know it'd be slower, but then we could get some of the code into the tree so that you'd have less of a branch to maintain.
In terms of the TinyScheme issue, as best as I can tell, TinyScheme semms to have replaced SIOD as the implementation language for Script- Fu in the Gimp, starting with 2.3 (development) and 2.4 (release, eventually), but I'm working as an outsider. I'm pretty sure the discussion was in mid-2006. Let's see ... the developers mailing list had a note about the replacement in week 42.
<snip>
If you'd prefer that Soren and David use guile, rather than TinyScheme, as the base implementation of Scheme for their InkScape scripting console, that's fine with me. (And probably with them.) However, it will delay their work somewhat, since they're starting classes again, and their available time is going away.
It really isn't as much about which Scheme interpreter, as much as how to include it. The problem that we run into is that if we include it in our source tree we end up maintaining that code. If we keep it as an external dependency, someone else maintains it. I like less work if possible. :)
It would also make sense that if GIMP is using the same interpreter that we are, we make it an external package. That way bugs can be fixed in one place. From some of the stuff I've been reading on the GIMP webpage it seems that their version of TinyScheme is patched to work better with GTK+ (UTF-8 fixes). Is that the version you guys have included?
p.s. Your message to the Gimp developers' list did get posted, it's at http://www.gimpusers.com/mailmsg.php?1186687639.4436.4.camel%40bender
Still haven't received any responses. I'll see what I can find out. I'll wait for "Monday" to finish around the world first :)
--Ted
On 8/13/07, Ted Gould wrote:
It really isn't as much about which Scheme interpreter, as much as how to include it. The problem that we run into is that if we include it in our source tree we end up maintaining that code. If we keep it as an external dependency, someone else maintains it. I like less work if possible. :)
So, what's the end of story? :)
Alexandre
On Tue, 2007-08-28 at 01:41 +0400, Alexandre Prokoudine wrote:
On 8/13/07, Ted Gould wrote:
It really isn't as much about which Scheme interpreter, as much as how to include it. The problem that we run into is that if we include it in our source tree we end up maintaining that code. If we keep it as an external dependency, someone else maintains it. I like less work if possible. :)
So, what's the end of story? :)
Well, it seems like the GIMP people aren't interested in sharing a dependency. Seems like a shame, but whatever. So, after getting Chris' changes into the build I'm planning on starting to integrate the Glimmer patch.
--Ted
On 9/2/07, Ted Gould <ted@...11...> wrote:
Well, it seems like the GIMP people aren't interested in sharing a dependency. Seems like a shame, but whatever. So, after getting Chris' changes into the build I'm planning on starting to integrate the Glimmer patch.
That is great news! If there is anything we can do to help you along in the integration process, let us know.
-David
participants (3)
-
Alexandre Prokoudine -
Glimmer Labs -
Ted Gould