Re: an i18n sample

[Baurjan Ismagulov <ibr@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr>]

Hello all,

On Tue, Oct 26, 2004 at 06:57:06AM +0200, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > This isn't the first time we've seen an attempt to mark up GDB.  Last 
> > time, unfortunatly, things became bogged down by the desire to fix i18n 
> > code problems _before_ marking things, and that let to the process 
> > becomming stalled (it's scope became too large so nothing happened), and 
> > eventually dropped.  Lets try to avoid that mistake this time.
> 
> Baurjan clearly said that he is willing to do both in one go, so I
> don't see how we are making the same mistake.

No need to quarrel :) , I believe I see the points of each side. I
personally feel that:

* The jeopardy of the process stalling due to the scope does exist (I'm
  very new to gdb, and tracing the execution flow and passed strings
  takes a long time).

* It makes little sense to go through the review process twice.

That is why what I am working at right now is rewriting the output
within the function scope and leaving issues requiring global changes
for later. Thus, the first stage can be done relatively quickly and with
better quality than just with s/"\([^"]*\)"/_("\1")/g. I think this is a
reasonable compromise.

With kind regards,
Baurjan.