Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
+static void output_exclude(const char *path, struct exclude *exclude)
+{
+ char *type = exclude->to_exclude ? "excluded" : "included";
+ char *bang = exclude->to_exclude ? "" : "!";
+ char *dir = (exclude->flags & EXC_FLAG_MUSTBEDIR) ? "/" : "";
+ printf(_("%s: %s %s%s%s "), path, type, bang, exclude->pattern, dir);
These English words "excluded" and "included" make the translator me
want to translate them. But they could be the markers for scripts, so
they may not be translated. How about using non alphanumeric letters
instead?
I agree they should not be translated, but it is a disease to think
unintelligible mnemonic is a better input format for scripts than
the spelled out words. "excluded/included" pair is just fine.
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
+static void output_exclude(const char *path, struct exclude *exclude)
+{
+ char *type = exclude->to_exclude ? "excluded" : "included";
+ char *bang = exclude->to_exclude ? "" : "!";
+ char *dir = (exclude->flags & EXC_FLAG_MUSTBEDIR) ? "/" : "";
+ printf(_("%s: %s %s%s%s "), path, type, bang, exclude->pattern, dir);
These English words "excluded" and "included" make the translator me
want to translate them. But they could be the markers for scripts, so
they may not be translated. How about using non alphanumeric letters
instead?
I agree they should not be translated, but it is a disease to think
unintelligible mnemonic is a better input format for scripts than
the spelled out words. "excluded/included" pair is just fine.
Not all mnemonic is unintelligible though. "+" and "-" may fit well in
this case. I'm just trying to make sure we have checked the mnemonic
pool before ending up with excluded/included.
--
Duy
On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:25:25PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Junio C Hamano [off-list ref] wrote:
quoted
Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy [off-list ref] writes:
quoted
quoted
+static void output_exclude(const char *path, struct exclude *exclude)
+{
+ char *type = exclude->to_exclude ? "excluded" : "included";
+ char *bang = exclude->to_exclude ? "" : "!";
+ char *dir = (exclude->flags & EXC_FLAG_MUSTBEDIR) ? "/" : "";
+ printf(_("%s: %s %s%s%s "), path, type, bang, exclude->pattern, dir);
These English words "excluded" and "included" make the translator me
want to translate them. But they could be the markers for scripts, so
they may not be translated. How about using non alphanumeric letters
instead?
I agree they should not be translated, but it is a disease to think
unintelligible mnemonic is a better input format for scripts than
the spelled out words. "excluded/included" pair is just fine.
Not all mnemonic is unintelligible though. "+" and "-" may fit well in
this case. I'm just trying to make sure we have checked the mnemonic
pool before ending up with excluded/included.
Personally I'd be against introducing "+" and "-" when we already have
"!" and "". Even though "+" and "-" are more intuitive, it would
create inconsistency and IMHO confusion.
I'm still unconvinced that it's worth having a separate type field in
the output when the pattern field already has a "!" prefix for
inclusions. Does a separate field really help porcelain writers or
make the output more readable?