[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: i18n/l10n summary
From: |
Paul Eggert |
Subject: |
Re: i18n/l10n summary |
Date: |
Wed, 31 May 2017 22:18:08 -0700 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1 |
Thanks for that patch: it's a good move forward for i18n. Some suggestions:
* Today I fixed the bug with "%%" and the 'error' function, so there's no need
for a FIXME or a workaround any more.
* In strings.texi, reorder the format spec description so that it matches the
textual order of a format spec. This should lessen confusion.
* Allow field numbers in a %% spec. All other components of a format spec are
allowed in %%, so odd to report an error for just field numbers.
* There is no need for a special diagnostic for field numbers greater than
PTRDIFF_MAX. Just use the same diagnostic other too-large field numbers use.
This avoids a need for an alloca.
* Reword "Invalid field number `0'" to "Invalid format field number 0" to make
it more obvious that it's a format and there's no need to quote the 0.
Proposed further patch attached (it addresses the above points), along with a
copy of your patch rebased to current master for convenience.
0001-Implement-field-numbers-in-format-strings.patch
Description: Text Data
0002-Minor-improvements-to-format-field-numbers.patch
Description: Text Data
- Re: i18n/l10n summary,
Paul Eggert <=
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Philipp Stephani, 2017/06/01
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Paul Eggert, 2017/06/01
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Philipp Stephani, 2017/06/02
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Paul Eggert, 2017/06/03
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Andreas Schwab, 2017/06/03
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Philipp Stephani, 2017/06/03
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Paul Eggert, 2017/06/04
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Eli Zaretskii, 2017/06/04
- Re: i18n/l10n summary, Paul Eggert, 2017/06/04