On 15-8-2012 10:08, Rainer Stratmann wrote: > Am Wednesday 15 August 2012 09:59:00 schrieb Lukasz Sokol: >> On 15/08/2012 08:33, Rainer Stratmann wrote: >>> Am Wednesday 15 August 2012 03:52:00 schrieb waldo kitty: >>>> the loading code simply >>>> chooses the proper po file and then loads the strings into an array or >>>> whatever using the same variables which are used everywhere no matter >>>> what language their contents are written in... >>> >>> Do you need a separate pascal identifier for each snippet? >>> >>>> i must still be missing something :? >> >> No with (dx)gettext you don't need pascal identifiers for every string. >> And the translating function is _():string; >> So all you do is writeln(_('snippet1'));, to follow your convention. >> >> So it more or less uses the same idea as you are trying to replicate. >> > Yes, that is possible as I understand it so far. > I did not know (dx)gettext before so replication is may not the right word. Yes, it is. Replication is doing the same thing twice, regardless of the reasons/knowledge behind that fact.
> My solution will be more flexible I assume. > I put already some hours in it and I like to write my own code so I follow > the > already driven way. I haven't used dxgettext, but would ask you to have a serious look at it. Presumably dxgettext users/developers had many of the same problems you face and have created solutions for those problems over the years. I understand you take pride in your own code and it feels like wasted effort to dump it, but using a set of proven code may be advantageous. You can still submit your own improvements to dxgettext if you hit problems... and if those aren't accepted, in the worst case create your own fork. You already have a very good grasp of the issues involved as you were writing your own solution. You could probably improve dxgettext with some things and get that in the main development tree, thereby improving things for others. The other way round also works: other peoples' improvements can end up in your code for free (almost: you'll need some implementation/verification time). While this may all be very well known to you, I would ask you to step back and consider it: having a detached look at it may lead to a better choice. Just my 2 cents, regards, Reinier _______________________________________________ fpc-pascal maillist - fpc-pascal@lists.freepascal.org http://lists.freepascal.org/mailman/listinfo/fpc-pascal