Re: pg_dump.options.diff - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: pg_dump.options.diff
Date
Msg-id 3500.1041538835@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: pg_dump.options.diff  ("Serguei Mokhov" <mokhov@cs.concordia.ca>)
List pgsql-hackers
"Serguei Mokhov" <mokhov@cs.concordia.ca> writes:
> Now, this:

> #if defined(HAVE_GETOPT_LONG)
> #define xo(long,short,desc)  printf("%s %s\n", long, desc)
> #else
> #define xo(long,short,desc)  printf("%s %s\n", short, desc)
> #endif

> seems relatively generic, so it could be used by more than one tool.

But there's no good place to put it.  I'd say just stick it into each
tool; it's no worse than repeating the existence of a "usage()"
subroutine in each tool.

> Is pushing it up to c.h an option,

I'd vote against that.

>> The trouble I see there is that the layout --- in particular the column
>> width --- would be embedded in such a routine and not alterable by
>> simply replacing message texts.

> True, but what would be wrong by having an argument for the column width?

The translator would have no control over such an argument --- at least
not without some mechanism outside the .po files.
        regards, tom lane


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: "Dan Langille"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Cast your vote ...
Next
From: "Jeroen T. Vermeulen"
Date:
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Cast your vote ...