Subject: Re: [PATCH] i18n: Not add stripped contents for translation

From: Jens Lehmann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 20:34:50 +0100

Am 05.03.2012 04:42, schrieb Junio C Hamano:
> Jiang Xin <[email-masked]> writes:
> 
>> Orignal source code:
>>
>> 244   case WT_STATUS_CHANGED:
>> 245     if (d->new_submodule_commits || d->dirty_submodule) {
>> 246       strbuf_addstr(&extra, " (");
>> 247       if (d->new_submodule_commits)
>> 248         strbuf_addf(&extra, _("new commits, "));
>> 249       if (d->dirty_submodule & DIRTY_SUBMODULE_MODIFIED)
>> 250         strbuf_addf(&extra, _("modified content, "));
>> 251       if (d->dirty_submodule & DIRTY_SUBMODULE_UNTRACKED)
>> 252         strbuf_addf(&extra, _("untracked content, "));
>> 253       strbuf_setlen(&extra, extra.len - 2);
>> 254       strbuf_addch(&extra, ')');
>> 255     }
>>
>> The bad thing is strbuf_setlen() at line 253. We can not asume the translation
>> of ", " must be 2 characters.
> 
> It sounds like you are merely working around a poor style in the original,
> which should have been structured more like this in the first place, no?
> 
>         /* a helper function elsewhere, possibly inlined */
>         static void add_iwsep_as_needed(struct strbuf *buf, int origlen)
>         {
>                 if (buf->len != origlen)
>                         strbuf_addstr(buf, _(","));
>         }
> 
>         ...
>         int origlen;
> 
>         strbuf_addstr(&extra, " ("))
>         origlen = extra.len;
>         if (a)
>                 strbuf_addstr(&extra, _("msg a"));
>         if (b) {
>                 add_iwsep_as_needed(&extra, origlen);
>                 strbuf_addstr(&extra, _("msg b"));
>         }
>         if (c) {
>                 add_iwsep_as_needed(&extra, origlen);
>                 strbuf_addstr(&extra, _("msg c"));
>         }
>         strbuf_addstr(&extra, ")");
> 
> Cc'ing Jens whose 9297f77 (git status: Show detailed dirty status of
> submodules in long format, 2010-03-08) introduced the "two-byte backstep".

I have no objections at all against changing the code that way to make it
possible to translate it in a sane way. This code predates the i18n effort
by a few months, so it didn't take this kind of problem into account.