Re: problem with plural-forms

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com>
Subject: Re: problem with plural-forms
Date: 2009-05-26 14:19:50
Message-ID: 11518.1243347590@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
> I think it should use the %2$s style specifier in that case. This
> should work:

> printf (ngettext ("One file removed, containing %2$lu bytes",
> "%d files removed, containing %lu bytes", n),
> n, total_bytes);

How's that gonna work? In the n=1 case, printf would have no idea about
the type/size of the argument it would need to skip over.

I think maybe you could make it work like this:

printf (ngettext ("One file removed, containing %1$lu bytes",
"%2$d files removed, containing %1$lu bytes", n),
total_bytes, n);

but *for sure* I don't want us playing such games without a robust
compile-time check on both variants of the ngettext string. I'm
not real sure it's a good idea at all, because of the potential for
confusing translators. Notice also that we have subtly embedded the
preferred English phrase ordering here: if someone wants to pull the
same type of trick in a language where the bytecount ought to come
first, he's just plain out of luck.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2009-05-26 14:26:50 Re: problem with plural-forms
Previous Message Greg Stark 2009-05-26 14:14:54 Re: problem with plural-forms