Re: problem with plural-forms

* Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> [090526 10:06]:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>
> > That advice is, if not outright wrong, at least incredibly
> > short-sighted. The method breaks the instant you have any additional
> > values to print. For example, this ain't gonna work:
> >
> > printf (ngettext ("One file removed, containing %lu bytes",
> > "%d files removed, containing %lu bytes", n),
> > n, total_bytes);
>
> 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);

From the glibc printf man page:
"There may be no gaps in the numbers of arguments specified using
'$'; for example, if arguments 1 and 3 are specified, argument 2 must
also be specified somewhere in the format string."

So, is skipping 1 allowed?

But, it *is* a commonly used form, especially in translations (where
orders of things need to be flipped), and is already used in many of the
translated PG .po files.

That said, I do think the "msgid" should be using the % args, not words
for a few reasons:
1) Make it more clear for translators the arguments and their ordering
without having to visit the source code
2) On crufty systems without gettext, I wouldn't expect them to support m$
modifiers then either...
3) Greg's "these are numbers, not sentences" is how I expect the system
to work...

a.

--
Aidan Van Dyk Create like a god,
aidan(at)highrise(dot)ca command like a king,
http://www.highrise.ca/ work like a slave.