From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 4491 invoked by alias); 21 Apr 2004 18:39:02 -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 4467 invoked from network); 21 Apr 2004 18:39:01 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO legolas.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.24) by sources.redhat.com with SMTP; 21 Apr 2004 18:39:01 -0000 Received: from zaretski ([80.230.149.235]) by legolas.inter.net.il (MOS 3.4.5-GR) with ESMTP id BPR36881; Wed, 21 Apr 2004 21:37:49 +0300 (IDT) Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 18:39:00 -0000 From: "Eli Zaretskii" To: Daniel Jacobowitz Message-Id: <3405-Wed21Apr2004213810+0300-eliz@gnu.org> CC: cagney@gnu.org, gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com In-reply-to: <20040421155350.GA6885@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Wed, 21 Apr 2004 11:53:50 -0400) Subject: Re: [rfc] Bug fixes for CLI "show" command Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20040419200005.GA16011@nevyn.them.org> <40855F1E.9080906@gnu.org> <20040421145917.GA4980@nevyn.them.org> <40869808.50409@gnu.org> <20040421155350.GA6885@nevyn.them.org> X-SW-Source: 2004-04/txt/msg00498.txt.bz2 > > If we touch any i18n breakage, we should fix it. Just like, if we break > > any deprecated code, we should fix it. > > I am not interested in reworking the interface of widely used functions > to support i18n, when there is no comprehensive plan or anyone working > on i18n support for GDB. Is that really unreasonable? It's just > wasted work! FWIW, I think we should not introduce new i18n problems, even though we don't actively work on adding i18n support at this time.