From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 28283 invoked by alias); 24 Jan 2006 21:28:48 -0000 Received: (qmail 28273 invoked by uid 22791); 24 Jan 2006 21:28:47 -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; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:28:46 +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 HRD36396; Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:20:26 +0200 (IST) Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 (IGLD-80-230-153-138.inter.net.il [80.230.153.138]) by nitzan.inter.net.il (MOS 3.7.3-GA) with ESMTP id CNT95277 (AUTH halo1); Tue, 24 Jan 2006 23:20:25 +0200 (IST) Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 21:28:00 -0000 Message-Id: From: Eli Zaretskii To: gdb-patches@sourceware.org In-reply-to: <20060124165326.GA19716@nevyn.them.org> (message from Daniel Jacobowitz on Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:53:26 -0500) Subject: Re: RFC: Clean up "show remote" Reply-to: Eli Zaretskii References: <20060122201759.GA28863@nevyn.them.org> <20060123051544.GA5009@nevyn.them.org> <20060124165326.GA19716@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/msg00378.txt.bz2 > Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 11:53:26 -0500 > From: Daniel Jacobowitz > > > > 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. > > This would be a terrible shame. I asked for opinions from a couple of > GCC developers, and Paolo Bonzini suggested: > > > if a translator is anal about where to break, he should use non-breaking spaces > > (such as Unicode 160) and those answer false for iswspace > > > iow, doing mbstowcs, breaking at iswspace, and converting back, should work. > > but it's sort of a mess > > > ask eli if that's correct. maybe it's not. > > Is that right? I'm not sure I understand what Paolo is saying. If he is saying that translators should bear the burden of forcing GDB not to break by using NBSP, then I think it's ridiculous: software should help us, not force us to work harder. > If not, is there some forum where I could get a definitive answer? For the definitive answer, look in the Unicode standard (not for the faint at heart): http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr14/ > Right now we just write overlength messages to the screen. I don't see > how that can be an improvement over breaking them at whitespace instead > of at the margins, but maybe I'm missing something? I think, as long as we are not sure about how to solve this in general, manually breaking into two messages is better than letting code blissfully break at whitespace, because that leaves the job of breaking in other languages to a (human) translator.