On 09/09/2017 01:24 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Tomas Vondra <tomas.vondra@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> The translator has exactly the same context in both cases, and the
>> struggle to wrap it at 80 characters will be pretty much the same too.
>
> Really? With the old way, you had something under 60 characters to
> work in, now it's nearly 80. I don't buy that that's not a significant
> difference. It's also much less ugly if you decide you need one more
> line than the English version uses.
>
That's not what I meant. I've never felt a strong urge to avoid wrapping
at 80 chars when translating strings - simply translate in the most
meaningful way, if it gets longer than 80 chars and can't be easily
shortened, just wrap. If there are 60 or 80 characters does not change
this much - 80 chars may allow more unwrapped strings, of course, but
it's a minor change for the translators. Or at least me, others may
disagree, of course.
What I find way more annoying are strings where it's not clear where to
wrap, because it gets prefixed by something, we insert a value while
formatting the error message, etc. But that's not the case here, as both
_("XXXX " " yyyy")
and
_("XXXX yyyy")
give you the whole string.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
