> Robert Ennals <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I personally much prefer the syntax currently used in Haskell, which is also
> > essentially what is used in most other recent languages, including Java, C++,
> > and (god help me) Perl.
> >
> > In the example given, I could write:
> >
> > "I have " ++ action ++ " " ++ number ++ " " ++ whatas
> > where
> > action = "trained"
> > number = show 1
> > whatas = "Jedi"
>
> This is all fine and dandy, but how would you translate this to
> 42 different languages your customers want supported, with
> different word order and all that?
Surely that problem only arises if one insists on encoding all the relevant
information inside a string.
An alternative would be to encode all user-visible messages in an external
module, with a Haskell function for each message.
The translator would then redefine this module for each language.
It doesn't involve any more complexity - it just shifts the complexity into a
more expressive language.
For example:
module Messages
-- English language version
where
stuffDone :: String -> Int -> String -> String
stuffDone action number whatas
= "I have " ++ action ++ " " ++ (show number) ++ " " ++ whatas
jedi = "Jedi"
trained = "Trained"
Normal code then does the following:
import qualified Messages as M
putStrLn $ M.stuffDone M.trained 1 M.jedi
Much nicer IMHO.
-Rob
_______________________________________________
Haskell mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
