Re: [PATCH 09/11] GETTEXT_POISON=rot13: do compare the output in `test_i18ncmp`

Johannes Schindelin [off-list ref] writes:

On Tue, 12 Jan 2021, Junio C Hamano wrote:

quoted

quoted

+static size_t unrot13(char *buf)
+{
+	char *p = buf, *q = buf;
+
+	while (*p) {
+		const char *begin = strstr(p, "<rot13>"), *end;

AFAIR from my reading of [02/11], the encoding side did not special
case the payload that has <ebg13> or </ebg13>; if we want to make it
reversible conversion (which is excellent improvement over the
current "# GETTEXT_POISON #" obfuscation), we'd need to do something
about it, I think.

Do you expect any message to be translated _twice_?

Not at all.

But what I had in mind, when I wrote the above, was that the
programmers are entitled to expect that they are allowed to say:

	die(_("message with <ebg13/>, <ebg13> and <rot13> in it"));

This will be rot13'd, and the entire thing will be enclosed inside
"<rot13>...</rot13>"; I would expect that somewhere inside "..." the
receiving end that attempts to parse it by relying on these markers
will be confused.

quoted

But on second thought, nobody can prevent a caller to die(_("%s", msg));
to have "<rot13>" in the msg part, so perhaps punting like this
series does is sufficient.  I dunno.

And this comment still stands.