Sorry, I meant to reply to this but forgot. > For developers, like ourselves, it seems straight-forward that a string is > this simple primitive. We get them in, we process them, and we spit them back > out. However, this is a flawed system, as it one that is made easiest for the > programmer, and is really designed for a context where the user is also a > programmer. It best suits technical scenarios such as configuration files, > environment variables, and command line arguments, as Brent suggests. > However, I don’t think this is the best case to design for.
It is *a* case we need to design for. It is also the *base* case: localization is layered on top of non-localized constructs. >> So, here's my version of your table: >> >> User-readable, nonlocalized: CustomStringConvertible >> User- and machine-readable, nonlocalized: LosslessStringConvertible >> User-readable, localized: (nothing) >> Developer-readable: CustomDebugStringConvertible >> >> (Playground isn't necessarily working with strings, so it doesn't belong in >> this list.) > > The first item in your table ‘User-readable, non-localised’, is the big > problem area to me. Ideally in my mind all of these should be moved to other > areas, such as the second area that LosslessStringConvertible occupies, which > command line arguments and configuration keys certainly could. And > user-readable should use a system that always allows localisation to be added > progressively, by use of type extensions or protocols. > > In a UI application, everything that is displayed should be using a system > which allows localisation. In theory, yes. In practice? We write code that will be used only once (like an ad-hoc fix for some problem). We write code that will never be exposed to users (like a background process). We write code that is kept in one limited environment (like a company internal app). We write code that simply isn't going to be localized for business reasons (like an app that wouldn't be profitable to translate). We write code that constructs strings without caring what their contents are (think of a Markdown converter). We write code that emits strings which are primarily for machines, but formatted to be convenient for humans—particularly human programmers working with the formats—to understand (think of a reporting tool that emits CSV with column headings in English). We write code where we know everyone will understand a certain language (air traffic control is conducted entirely in English worldwide). We write code that's too low-level to be localized. We write unit tests (hopefully). And we write code when we're just learning how to program, and printing the result of 1 + 2 in French is the last thing on our minds. So yes, in a meticulously-engineered ideal application, you would have little call for "user-readable, nonlocalized". But that's not what people write a lot of the time. To be clear: If there is a *low-cost* way to make sure that UI text is localizable by default, I'm all for it. (And I even have an idea or two in that area.) But I don't think bringing localization into the standard library is how you make it low-cost. Remember, Foundation can always add localization to any standard library type it wants through extensions. > I would argue a command line tool is also a UI application. Sure, but see the above. (Plus, command line tools *do* have a stronger legitimate need for non-localized stuff—think of things like command-line switches and environment variables, communicating over filehandles and pipes, "text" that's actually UI like twirlers and progress bars, etc.) >> Localization is an obvious hole in our string conversions, but I think the >> reality here is that localization is part of a higher layer than the >> standard library. From what I can see, all of the "standard library" APIs >> which handle localization are actually part of Foundation. I'm sure that, if >> we build any localization-related features into the language, we'll add >> basic supporting code to the standard library if needed, but other than >> that, I don't think the standard library is the right place. > > I believe best practices can be put in place with a system no more > complicated for the programmer than the one we have now. This could be > possible with protocols: a core protocols in the standard library that are > then fleshed out in a Foundation-level framework above, with Locale / > CultureCode / etc types extending or conforming. I'm not sure what the purpose would be of having a protocol in the standard library which didn't offer even a lick of the promised functionality without a higher-level framework. What do we gain by having `localizedDescription` in the standard library if nothing written against only the standard library can actually emit a localized description? >>> I’m not sure if anyone else shares the concern, so I’ll leave it. I do >>> believe it’s important however. >> >> I do think this is an important concern, and I also think it's important to >> ask how interpolation interacts with it. For instance, I think it would be >> very useful to be able to say "interpolate developer representations" or >> "interpolate user representations" or "interpolate localized user >> representations", and have the compiler reject interpolated expressions >> which don't have the necessary representation. > > I like this idea. I think “interpolate localised user representations” should > not be distinct from “interpolate user representations”. Instead > non-localised is specifically denoted as ‘technical’ or perhaps ‘en-US’. > Locales, or more broadly ‘contexts’, are not something additional, instead, > everything already has a context, and the context of a string could be made > more explicit. I mean, you can call it "non-localized" or you can call it "technical", but a rose by any other name smells just as sweet. -- Brent Royal-Gordon Architechies _______________________________________________ swift-evolution mailing list [email protected] https://lists.swift.org/mailman/listinfo/swift-evolution
