Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Kris Jurka wrote:
>
>>>For example "Bad short" => "Bad {0}" with "short" as argument.
>>>This way "Bad int" becomes "Bad {0}" we have reduced the number of
>>>messages to translate.
>>
>>Is this a good idea? I'm willing to take your word as someone who
>>actually does translations, but I wanted to confirm that
>>parameterizing the message in this way won't cause translation
>>problems.
>
>
> I'm pretty sure it will. Splitting the adjective away from the noun
> isn't a good idea.
>
I typed quickly the message with my patch ; the changes are the following :
- "Conversion of box failed: {0}." => "Conversion of {1} failed: {0}."
with box,circle,line,lseg,point
- "The JVM claims not to support the ASCII encoding." => "The JVM claims
not to support the {0} encoding."
with ASCII,UTF-8
- "Bad byte: {0}" => "Bad {1}: {0}"
with byte,short,int,long,BigDecimal,float,double,date
- "Cannot cast an instance of {0} to Types.BIT" => "Cannot cast an
instance of {0} to {1}"
with Types.BIT,Types.OTHER
As you can see, the new parameters have all the same gender : they are
all java type names or encodings. Since they have the same gender, the
adjective will be the same for all.
As far as I know, this type of replacement can't be a problem.
If the new parameters were real nouns with different genders, it would
be a problem, but not in these cases.
No ?
