From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10062 invoked by alias); 20 Oct 2006 06:10:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 10054 invoked by uid 22791); 20 Oct 2006 06:10:39 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from heller.inter.net.il (HELO heller.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.73) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:10:36 +0000 Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-84-229-234-60.inter.net.il [84.229.234.60]) by heller.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3a-GA) with ESMTP id ATO52727 (AUTH halo1); Fri, 20 Oct 2006 07:10:18 +0200 (IST) Date: Fri, 20 Oct 2006 06:10:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: Andrew STUBBS CC: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <45374981.5080304@st.com> (message from Andrew STUBBS on Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:46:41 +0100) Subject: Re: [PATCH] Don't give spurious warnings when using thread specific breakpoints Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <452CF534.4060209@st.com> <20061011135545.GA26060@nevyn.them.org> <452D0385.6010103@st.com> <20061011204525.GA9622@nevyn.them.org> <45361793.1020202@st.com> <20061018141419.GA7771@nevyn.them.org> <4536444C.9020709@st.com> <45374981.5080304@st.com> X-IsSubscribed: yes Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2006-10/txt/msg00251.txt.bz2 > Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 10:46:41 +0100 > From: Andrew STUBBS > Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org > > Of course, if they are translating without any reference to the context > in which it is displayed, and without being programmers, then I suspect > the translation would read rather like a Chinese road sign. As I wrote, most translators are not programmers, and should not be required to read the code. It is best if the message phrase speaks for itself; if not, gettext lets you put the explanation of the context into specially-formatted comments that are copied into the message catalog next to the message itself. The translators will then realize the context from those comments. > No, you misunderstand the code. There can be an arbitrary number > breakpoints, each of which can have zero, one or two annotations, and > they are all presented as one message. I was trying to give an example, so the question is: did I succeed to explain how to resolve these issues? If not, please show me several examples of the output that this code produces now, and I will modify my counter-example accordingly. TIA