RE: 2.4 Module List - zenity

On Thu, 2003-03-27 at 13:19, Murray Cumming Comneon com wrote:
> ...
>  I certainly don't think it
> makes sense to include xenity without an example script. And if that example
> script is useful then it should not be a script, but should be part of
> Nautilus instead.

There's some circular reasoning going on here that bugs me.

The question is not whether scripts are useful in general, not
whether _particular_ scripts are useful, but whether a _general_
scripting facility is useful.

It seem to me that it might be, in which case the utility of the
examples is not in "how many users want the examples' features",
but rather in whether the examples are useful in guiding users/admins
to develop their own custom scripts.

So, a scripting engine without examples is bad, but the logic that
"all generally useful features should go into Nautilus, therefore
all script examples are either useless or should be Nautilus core
features" seems bogus to me; the utility of the scripting feature is
its flexibility, not the specific features we bundle with it.  In a 
case like this the engine _is_ the feature.

I don't have an opinion about this particular engine, etc., only
that the arguments against it seem a little self-referential.

Bill Haneman <bill haneman sun com>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]