| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Zdenek Kotala <Zdenek(dot)Kotala(at)sun(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: problem with plural-forms |
| Date: | 2009-05-26 14:34:32 |
| Message-ID: | 200905261734.32878.peter_e@gmx.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tuesday 26 May 2009 16:47:44 Tom Lane wrote:
> 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);
Don't do that then. This only shows that you cannot implement everything this
way. It does not show why the things that you can implement are wrong.
> I'm of the opinion that the test being performed by msgfmt -v is
> entirely reasonable, and we should not risk such problems for the sake
> of sometimes spelling out "one".
I have no objections to this. I am only pointing out how we arrived at the
current state.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Aidan Van Dyk | 2009-05-26 14:36:03 | Re: problem with plural-forms |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2009-05-26 14:32:56 | Re: problem with plural-forms |