From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 21405 invoked by alias); 23 Jan 2006 22:44:36 -0000 Received: (qmail 21397 invoked by uid 22791); 23 Jan 2006 22:44:35 -0000 X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from gandalf.inter.net.il (HELO gandalf.inter.net.il) (192.114.186.17) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.31) with ESMTP; Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:44:34 +0000 Received: from nitzan.inter.net.il (nitzan.inter.net.il [192.114.186.20]) by gandalf.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.1-GA) with ESMTP id HQY05905; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:44:29 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-80-233.inter.net.il [80.230.80.233]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CNP36443 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 00:44:28 +0200 (IST) Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 22:44:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060123051544.GA5009@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:15:44 -0500) Subject: Re: RFC: Clean up "show remote" Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060122201759.GA28863@nevyn.them.org> <20060123051544.GA5009@nevyn.them.org> 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: 2006-01/txt/msg00343.txt.bz2 > Date: Mon, 23 Jan 2006 00:15:44 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > With your change, the part in parentheses will not be displayed, so > > how would the user know that Z0 is a packet that sets software > > breakpoints? > > Instead, you'll get something that looks like the current output of > "show print": > > software-breakpoint-packet: Support for the `Z0' packet is auto-detected, currently unknown Right, I didn't catch the part before the colon, since it's in another place in the code. But doesn't the above looks backwards, English-wise? we first announce the full packet name, and then say that support for its short alias is . The "foo: Bar" syntax is usually reserved for messages that come from `foo', which is not really the case here. > I'm trying to cut down on how badly this wraps, since we can't > word-wrap in translated messages (is there any way to do that? The only good way is to break it into two separate messages and mark them in i18n comments as belonging to the same phrase. Translators will then break the translated message as appropriate for their language (or even produce a single line, by translating the second part as an empty string). > GCC seems to wrap using spaces even in i18n output; maybe we > could do the same, if I am interpreting that right?). If that's what GCC does, GCC is not doing TRT: wrapping on spaces works for Latin and other similar languages, but can be dead wrong in other scripts.