From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10789 invoked by alias); 12 Feb 2005 19:45:40 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gdb-help@sources.redhat.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-owner@sources.redhat.com Received: (qmail 10586 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2005 19:45:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO sccrmhc11.comcast.net) (204.127.202.55) by sourceware.org with SMTP; 12 Feb 2005 19:45:34 -0000 Received: from [10.0.1.3] (h000393256f12.ne.client2.attbi.com[24.61.199.96]) by comcast.net (sccrmhc11) with SMTP id <2005021219453301100g6cc4e>; Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:45:33 +0000 User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/11.1.0.040913 Date: Sat, 12 Feb 2005 19:57:00 -0000 Subject: Re: i18n and internal errors From: Paul Schlie To: Message-ID: Mime-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit X-SW-Source: 2005-02/txt/msg00094.txt.bz2 > Kevin Buettner writes: >> Mark Kettenis wrote: >> Should we really be marking internal errors for translation? I think >> we shouldn't. These are all messages the end-user shouldn't be >> seeing. Having them translated, makes it only more difficult for us >> to fix bugs. > >I agree. Arguably, translating text messages emanating from programming tools which presume (if not for all practical purposes require) the users to be familiar with English (as it's the basis of the programming languages the tools themselves are being used to support the authoring/debugging of), seems like a tremendous waist of time and effort to begin with. (sorry, just felt compelled to state it; but don't wish to argue it)