From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 6029 invoked by alias); 12 Dec 2004 19:50:15 -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 5973 invoked from network); 12 Dec 2004 19:50:13 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (66.187.233.31) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Dec 2004 19:50:13 -0000 Received: from int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (int-mx1.corp.redhat.com [172.16.52.254]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id iBCJo71E031004 for ; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:50:12 -0500 Received: from localhost.redhat.com (vpn50-50.rdu.redhat.com [172.16.50.50]) by int-mx1.corp.redhat.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id iBCJo7r08045; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:50:07 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by localhost.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 56B5D3EF9; Sun, 12 Dec 2004 14:48:01 -0500 (EST) Message-ID: <41BCA070.2030805@gnu.org> Date: Sun, 12 Dec 2004 21:07:00 -0000 From: Andrew Cagney User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 0.8 (X11/20041020) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Daniel Jacobowitz Cc: Baurjan Ismagulov , gdb-patches@sources.redhat.com Subject: Re: an i18n sample References: <20041024104805.GA2369@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <20041127205606.GF12080@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <01c4d4ce$Blat.v2.2.2$adeda280@zahav.net.il> <20041204194102.GB8003@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <20041204221947.GA3433@ata.cs.hun.edu.tr> <41BC7887.3050701@gnu.org> <20041212183458.GA14438@nevyn.them.org> In-Reply-To: <20041212183458.GA14438@nevyn.them.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2004-12/txt/msg00346.txt.bz2 > Baurjan did not preserve the existing style of concatenation; he > changed it to be uniform, to the one I object to (for the reasons I > gave). If you disagree with my reasons, then let's discuss that > instead of you executively overriding them. Neither the GNU nor GDB > coding style expresses a preference here. Baurjan and I both prefer > the concatenation style for aesthetic reasons and no one else chose to > express an opinion. We've previously discussed this and in the end we each [hopefully] accepted that there were technical and aesthetic reasons both for and against each choice (the ``agree to disagree''). For shorter one line strings, there's no reason to retain the old style. However, for longer multi-line strings, which need to be kept to 80 columns, and require other white space formatting, then the old style is easier (and even when it breaks -p). Remember, the Objective is to just get the strings marked up and then with the minimum of effort. This isn't the time to be changing string styles. Does that sound reasonable? Andrew PS: I was simply obliging Baurjan's request that his patch get committed. PPS: Of course if someone were to add i18n wordwrap code that automatically split these paragraphs at convenient points, this whole debate would be mute.