Re: [Gimp-developer] PF_ENUM, SF_ENUM, dynamically defined enums for plugins

[Ofnuts <ofnuts gmx com>]

Not really. With the current interface, I manage it that way:

I have these two functions:

def createOpts(name,pairs):
    optsclass=namedtuple(name+'Type',[symbol for symbol,label in 
pairs]+['labels','labelTuples'])
    opts=optsclass(*(
                    range(len(pairs))
                    +[[label for symbol,label in pairs]]
                    +[[(label,i) for i,(symbol,label) in enumerate(pairs)]]
                    ))
    return opts

def createValuedOpts(name,triplets):
    optsclass=namedtuple(name+'Type',[symbol for symbol,_,_ in 
triplets]+['labels','labelTuples','values'])
    opts=optsclass(*(
                    range(len(triplets))
                    +[[label for _,label,_ in triplets]]
                    +[[(label,i) for i,(_,label,_) in enumerate(triplets)]]
                    +[[value for _,_,value in triplets]]
                    ))
    return opts

"createOpts" lets one define a namedtuple where members have the proper 
values, so for instance, after

GuidesShow=createOpts('GuidesShow',[('NO','No'),('YES','Yes')])

I can use "GuidesShow.NO" in the code and I don't really care if it was 
defined as 1 or 0.

"createValuedOpts" adds a "values" array which is indexed by the other 
members. "values" elements can be anything: integer/float constants,  
strings, but also functions/lambdas  so for instance I can define a 
bunch of conversions:

Units=createValuedOpts('Units',[
                        ('MM',"Millimetres",lambda x: x/25.4),
                        ('CM',"Centimetres",lambda x: x/2.54),
                        ('INCH',"Inches",lambda x: x),
                        ])

So later in the code, assuming "units" is the value of the corresponding 
parameter, converting whatever values to inches is just

inches=Units.values[units](input)

The "labels" member is also generated to be used in the registration:

optionsUnits=(PF_OPTION,'unit','Units', Units.MM, Units.labels)

Here also, I never have to worry about some behind-the-scenes integer 
value.



On 15/08/2022 02:52, Nathan Summers wrote:
> Sounds like a nightmare for scripting if I'm understanding correctly.
>
> Rockwalrus