On Tue, 2017-09-19 at 09:50 +0200, Frédéric Marchal wrote:
> On lundi 18 septembre 2017 13 h 20 min 25 s CEST Martin Sebor wrote:
> >
> > I haven't looked at all of them but from the few I have seen it
> > seems that rephrasing the messages along the following lines would
> > be a way to get around the translation issue and without increasing
> > the number of calls (though not without the conditional):
> >
> > error (is_pragma
> > ? G_("missing name in %<#pragma target\(\"%s=\")%>")
> > : G_("missing name in %<target(\"%s=\")%> attribute"),
> > "arch");
> >
> > The additional benefit of this approach is that it would also make
> > the quoting consistent with what seems to be the prevailing style
> > of these sorts of messages. (It would be nice to eventually
> > converge on the same style/quoting and phrasing across all back
> > and front ends.)
> Indeed! That's even better as the message uses words the user sees in the
> source code whatever his/her locale language is.
>
> With your proposal, I know I must not translate "target" because it clearly
> is
> part of the programming language. With the former message, I would have
> translated "target" as part of the human language message. Your approach is
> clearly better.
>
> Frederic
Are '%<...%>' described somewhere? These aren't normal printf options
are they? I don't think I have ever used them before. I am also not
sure why you have '%s=' means vs. '%s'. Is it even worth breaking the
word 'arch' out of the string vs. having something like:
error (is_pragma
? G_("missing name in %<#pragma target \"arch\"%>)
: G_("missing name in %<target arch%> attribute"));
Steve Ellcey
sell...@cavium.com
