From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 31667 invoked by alias); 27 Oct 2004 05:03:22 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 31646 invoked from network); 27 Oct 2004 05:03:17 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 27 Oct 2004 05:03:17 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.148.190]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.3-GR) with ESMTP id CYM03225 (AUTH halo1); Wed, 27 Oct 2004 07:02:33 +0200 (IST) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2004 05:03:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-ID: <01c4bbe1$Blat.v2.2.2$a8043420@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: ibr@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20041026200155.GA29170@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:01:56 -0400) Subject: Re: an i18n sample Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20041024104805.GA2369@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <01c4b9ff$Blat.v2.2.2$1ebcb860@zahav.net.il> <20041024201802.GA17380@nevyn.them.org> <01c4bace$Blat.v2.2.2$09c744a0@zahav.net.il> <20041025202052.GA15021@nevyn.them.org> <01c4bb16$Blat.v2.2.2$57f587c0@zahav.net.il> <20041026200155.GA29170@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-10/txt/msg00451.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2004 16:01:56 -0400 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > Cc: ibr@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com > > I mean that I believe the string that GDB displays to the user for > these two cases, i.e. an unnamed type or a type whose name is set to > , should always be the same. If that is possible in the target language, I agree that the strings should be similar. Having 2 complete strings will help in getting as close to this goal as possible, since the translator will see two similar sentences one after the other in the message catalog and figure out that they are from the same code. > > Given a string "", how would a translator know that it is > > supposed to be a substitution for %s in the format string? The only > > way to know that is to read the source, which a translator normally > > does not do. Without knowing the context of "", the > > translator is unlikely to find a good translation for it. > > That's true. But it expresses a concept - an object without a name. > Would "" be better? It's possible, I don't know. My concerns were about the linguistic and grammatical aspects: for example, in some languages, adjectives such as "unnamed" have different forms depending on whether they refer to a noun of a masculine or feminine (or even neuter) gender. "Unnamed type" will actually help in this case, but other similar grammatical considerations might still remain unresolved. Having a full sentence normally goes a long way towards resolving them.