Hi, Le jeudi 08 septembre 2005 à 19:12 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull a écrit :
> It would be > nice to be able to lose the "_()" calls to gettext(). The function > would look to see if a message catalog was available for the current > output stream, and if not, do no translation. That doesn't sound right to me. 1. You still need to do automatic extraction of these strings (gettext has tools for that, which rely on the use of the "_()" function - or any other dedicated function (*)). 2. You can't assume that all strings must be i18n'ed. For example if I'm interfacing with the user via a text-based network protocol which has a field named "Length", I don't want that "Length" field to be replaced with the Japanese translation of the word "Length". For i18n, "explicit is better than implicit" ;) The beauty of "_()" is that it's at the same time explicit, easily recognizable, and very short to type and read (it doesn't clutter the source code). If I dare say, the "%" operator has the same qualities. (*) of course more automatization of what gettext does could be a nice improvement too! > But so far, I don't see > any reason why your proposal for the $1 positional syntax in printf() > hinders any of the above. As I said Python needs an operator or function that does string formatting using a simple template, *without* doing output at the same time. The current syntax is the '%' operator, it could change, but it shouldn't be removed in favor of an inflexible print-with-formatting approach. Regards Antoine. _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
