Mattias Engdegård wrote on Tue, May 07, 2013 at 21:44:00 +0200:
> 7 maj 2013 kl. 01.00 skrev Daniel Shahaf:
>
>> Of course there is, if someday APR uses "invalid option" in another
>> meaning than the one this patch assumes it does.
>
> Believe it or not, that is already how gettext translation works. If you
> think that really is a problem, then Subversion has got it in spades.
> Every time we mark up a string for translation with _(), there is the
> danger that someone will add an identical string in another meaning
> somewhere else, and nothing will alert us to the fact.
>
Apples and oranges. The issue you're talking about is that _("hello
world") would have to be translated differently in two places within our
code. Your patch potentially uses _() either on string literals from
APR's future code (which, unlike string literals in our code, we can't
review pre-release for appropriateness of the translation to both of
them) or even on user input.
I don't really have much to say to the rest of your mail that I didn't
already say. It boils down to a disagreement over whether
lambda x: !strcmp(x, "invalid option")
is a stable API.
