[Gimp-developer] Script-Fu procedure blurb review

[Sven Neumann]

Hi,

On Sat, 2006-07-01 at 11:59 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:

> The switch over to Tiny-Fu will result in a certain amount of
> incompatibilities anyway so it might be a good time to reconsider.

We are most likely not going to do the switch to Tiny-Fu until those
incompatibilities have been sorted out. There might be some scripts that
will stop to work when Script-Fu is changed to use the tiny-fu
interpreter, but those scripts can basically be considered broken
already. Broken because they are using undocumented misbehaviour of the
SIOD interpreter.

> > it makes a lot of sense to clean up the short strings now. Other changes
> > can be considered after 2.4.
> 
> CVS will still have the long descriptions if anyone wants to go back and
> add then in again.

Now you are forcing me to repeat myself again. There are basically no
scripts in CVS that have a long description. The scripts are merely
undocumented. If more than five scripts would use anything longer than
half a sentence as their help string, we would of course not throw it
away.


Sven