From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 1182 invoked by alias); 14 Feb 2005 22:03:56 -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 1161 invoked from network); 14 Feb 2005 22:03:48 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 14 Feb 2005 22:03:48 -0000 Received: from zaretski (tony06-88-59.inter.net.il [80.230.88.59]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.5.6-GR) with ESMTP id DTI23172 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 15 Feb 2005 00:03:40 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 02:04:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Andrew Cagney Message-ID: <01c512e1$Blat.v2.4$149cf760@zahav.net.il> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 CC: gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <4210E94F.6010505@gnu.org> (message from Andrew Cagney on Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:09:19 -0500) Subject: Re: [commit] Mark up add_cmd Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <4210E94F.6010505@gnu.org> X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00137.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 13:09:19 -0500 > From: Andrew Cagney > > another one down, Thanks, but please, PLEASE let us return to the normal review process! Sigh. I don't know anymore why should I bother reviewing patches when they are committed unconditionally, but here goes anyway... > - add_cmd ("breakpoints", class_alias, disable_command, > - "Disable some breakpoints.\n\ > + add_cmd ("breakpoints", class_alias, disable_command, _("\ > +Disable some breakpoints.\n\ > Arguments are breakpoint numbers with spaces in between.\n\ > To disable all breakpoints, give no argument.\n\ > A disabled breakpoint is not forgotten, but has no effect until reenabled.\n\ > -This command may be abbreviated \"disable\".", > +This command may be abbreviated \"disable\"."), > &disablelist); Here (and in other similar places) I think we should leave the "disable" part untranslated, since it's a command name. If we make "disable" part of the message, there's a danger that some overzealous translator will translate that word as well. > + add_cmd ("breakpoints", class_maintenance, maintenance_info_breakpoints, _("\ > +Status of all breakpoints, or breakpoint number NUMBER.\n\ > The \"Type\" column indicates one of:\n\ > \tbreakpoint - normal breakpoint\n\ > \twatchpoint - watchpoint\n\ > \tlongjmp - internal breakpoint used to step through longjmp()\n\ > \tlongjmp resume - internal breakpoint at the target of longjmp()\n\ > \tuntil - internal breakpoint used by the \"until\" command\n\ > -\tfinish - internal breakpoint used by the \"finish\" command\n", > - "The \"Disp\" column contains one of \"keep\", \"del\", or \"dis\" to indicate\n\ > +\tfinish - internal breakpoint used by the \"finish\" command\n\ > +The \"Disp\" column contains one of \"keep\", \"del\", or \"dis\" to indicate\n\ > the disposition of the breakpoint after it gets hit. \"dis\" means that the\n\ > breakpoint will be disabled. The \"Address\" and \"What\" columns indicate the\n\ Do we translate, or intend to translate, parts of the breakpoint display, like "watchpoint", "keep", "dis" etc. mentioned in this string? If some of them are to be left untranslated, we need to make sure they will not be translated in the string, or that at least there's a comment to that effect which will make it to the gdb.pot file. > - add_cmd ("pause", class_run, set_thread_default_pause_cmd, > - "Set whether the new threads are suspended while gdb has control.\n\ > + add_cmd ("pause", class_run, set_thread_default_pause_cmd, _("\ > +Set whether the new threads are suspended while gdb has control.\n\ > This property normally has no effect because the whole task is\n\ > suspended, however, that may be disabled with \"set task pause off\".\n\ > -The default value is \"off\".", > +The default value is \"off\"."), Similarly here with "set task pause off" and "on"/"off". > add_cmd ("memory-read-packet-size", no_class, > - set_memory_read_packet_size, > - "Set the maximum number of bytes per memory-read packet.\n" > - "Specify the number of bytes in a packet or 0 (zero) for the\n" > - "default packet size. The actual limit is further reduced\n" > - "dependent on the target. Specify ``fixed'' to disable the\n" > - "further restriction and ``limit'' to enable that restriction\n", > + set_memory_read_packet_size, _("\ > +Set the maximum number of bytes per memory-read packet.\n\ > +Specify the number of bytes in a packet or 0 (zero) for the\n\ > +default packet size. The actual limit is further reduced\n\ > +dependent on the target. Specify ``fixed'' to disable the\n\ > +further restriction and ``limit'' to enable that restriction."), > &remote_set_cmdlist); Are "fixed" and "limit" going to be translated? There are many similar problems in these patches, which I think we cannot leave alone.