"Joseph S. Myers" <[email protected]> writes:
[...]
| > | > @@ -379,15 +375,15 @@
| > | > switch (code)
| > | > {
| > | > case INTEGER_TYPE:
| > | > - pp_string (pp, (TYPE_UNSIGNED (t)
| > | > - ? M_("<unnamed-unsigned:")
| > | > - : M_("<unnamed-signed:")));
| > | > + pp->translate_string (TYPE_UNSIGNED (t)
| > | > + ? "<unnamed-unsigned:"
| > | > + : "<unnamed-signed:");
| > |
| > | may need each case of the conditional expression to be marked for
| > | extraction for translation, or to be separated into two separate calls
| > | using "if" (we've had that issue before with conditional expressions in
| > | diagnostics).
| >
| > Hmm, why would that be needed now, and not before?
| > (not that I am found of the conditional, but only by curiosity.)
|
| Previously, each string was inside a separate call to M_() - the strings
| themselves were the msgid parameters. Now, the msgid parameter is not a
| single string but a more complicated expression and xgettext may not
| handle such expressions properly the way it handles having just a single
| string as parameter.
OK, thanks the explanation.
Do you think the same issue arise with diagnostic_set_info,
diagnostic_append_note?
-- Gaby
