On 16/09/2013 19:35, Tim Marston wrote:
> Hi Lorenzo,
>
> On Sun, Aug 25, 2013 at 01:06:41PM +0200, Lorenzo Bettini wrote:
>> yes, I think that it all should be backward compatible, even at the
>> cost of adding new stuff...
>
> Yes, this would be ideal. But the only way to support the original
> interface as well as the new interface would be duplicate *almost all*
> of the strings in the generated output. Is this really what you want
> to do? It will also mean supporting both interfaces (along with their
> separate ways of generating strings -- runtime vs. generation-time) and
> the additional code complexity of providing them both.
>
> I had imagined that the API breakage that I was proposing might
> constitute a minor (or perhaps even major) version number increment.
> But do you feel that compatibility is more important than that?
>
Why don't we have a command line argument to enable
internationalization? At that point the user knows that he needs to
change something...
cheers
Lorenzo
--
Lorenzo Bettini, PhD in Computer Science, DI, Univ. Torino
HOME: http://www.lorenzobettini.it
Xtext Book:
http://www.packtpub.com/implementing-domain-specific-languages-with-xtext-and-xtend/book
_______________________________________________
Help-gengetopt mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/help-gengetopt
