Thread: Syntax got translated
Hello,
I tested 9.1.2 and I used --enable-nls in ./configure.
I used psql.
I tested German, French and Spanish - I guess it is in all translated=20
languages.
The test is very easy:
CREATE TABLE t(i serial);
\d t
Output in German:
i | integer | not null Vorgabewert nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
Output in French:
i | integer | non NULL Par d=E9faut, nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
Output in Spanish:
i | integer | not null valor por omisi=F3n nextval('t_i_seq'::regclas=
s)
I think that the constraint keyword "DEFAULT" should not be translated here.
In my eyes in all cases it should output:
i | integer | not null default nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
Susanne
--=20
Dipl. Inf. Susanne Ebrecht - 2ndQuadrant
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
www.2ndQuadrant.com
Am 18.02.2012 22:11, schrieb Susanne Ebrecht:
>
> Output in French:
> i | integer | non NULL Par d=C3=A9faut, nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
I just recognised that in French also the "not" from "not null" got=20
translated.
Additionally I tested Turkish:
i | integer | Null de=C4=9Fil =C3=B6ntan=C4=B1ml=C4=B1 nextval('t_i_seq'::r=
egclass)
Same here - "not null" and "default" got translated.
Susanne
--=20
Dipl. Inf. Susanne Ebrecht - 2ndQuadrant
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services
www.2ndQuadrant.com
Excerpts from Susanne Ebrecht's message of s=C3=A1b feb 18 18:11:54 -0300 2=
012:
> Output in German:
> i | integer | not null Vorgabewert nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
>=20
> Output in French:
> i | integer | non NULL Par d=C3=A9faut, nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
>=20
> Output in Spanish:
> i | integer | not null valor por omisi=C3=B3n nextval('t_i_seq'::re=
gclass)
>=20
> I think that the constraint keyword "DEFAULT" should not be translated he=
re.
> In my eyes in all cases it should output:
>=20
> i | integer | not null default nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
I'm not clear on this. I translated it because it seemed sensible, but
I remember stopping for a minute to consider it. Maybe if more people
thinks it should not be translated, we could remove the translatability
marker from DEFAULT and other stuff like NOT NULL. I'mnot sure
however. Just removing the translations from the existing catalogs is
not enough, because future versions will just put them back.
--=20
=C3=81lvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:15:34 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
<alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
> Excerpts from Susanne Ebrecht's message of s=C3=A1b feb 18 18:11:54 -0300
2012:
>=20
>> Output in German:
>> i | integer | not null Vorgabewert nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
>>=20
>> Output in French:
>> i | integer | non NULL Par d=C3=A9faut, nextval('t_i_seq'::regclas=
s)
>>=20
>> Output in Spanish:
>> i | integer | not null valor por omisi=C3=B3n
>> nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
>>=20
>> I think that the constraint keyword "DEFAULT" should not be translated
>> here.
>> In my eyes in all cases it should output:
>>=20
>> i | integer | not null default nextval('t_i_seq'::regclass)
>=20
> I'm not clear on this. I translated it because it seemed sensible, but
> I remember stopping for a minute to consider it. Maybe if more people
> thinks it should not be translated, we could remove the translatability
> marker from DEFAULT and other stuff like NOT NULL. I'mnot sure
> however. Just removing the translations from the existing catalogs is
> not enough, because future versions will just put them back.
>=20
I don't see why the modifiers shouldn't be translatable. It's not as if
they were intended to be copied and pasted in a query. They are here to
help the user understand the different modifiers in each column.
-1 to get rid of the translations.
--=20
Guillaume
http://www.postgresql.fr
http://dalibo.com
Am 20.02.2012 21:22, schrieb Guillaume Lelarge: > > I don't see why the modifiers shouldn't be translatable. It's not as if > they were intended to be copied and pasted in a query. They are here to > help the user understand the different modifiers in each column. > Of course they are intended to get copied and pasted. In support you often ask for output from \d tablename. And when I look to the languages that I never learned, especially when I look into Turkish - I would read NULL and not would estimate column is not NULL. Default and not null are keywords - they are valid sql syntax. They are constraint definitions. When I output the table definition I want the constraint definition - I don't want to translate it back to english to understand - ahhhh default is meant. Susanne -- Dipl. Inf. Susanne Ebrecht - 2ndQuadrant PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services www.2ndQuadrant.com
Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> writes:
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:15:34 -0300, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote:
>> Excerpts from Susanne Ebrecht's message of sáb feb 18 18:11:54 -0300
>>> I think that the constraint keyword "DEFAULT" should not be translated
>>> here.
> I don't see why the modifiers shouldn't be translatable. It's not as if
> they were intended to be copied and pasted in a query. They are here to
> help the user understand the different modifiers in each column.
> -1 to get rid of the translations.
It seems to boil down to whether you think the "Modifiers" column
contains SQL, or a textual description of the column's properties.
I could go either way on that, but I notice that the existing code
is in the habit of truncating the default expression at 128 characters.
If we want to decide that we're printing real, copy-and-pastable SQL,
that seems like a bad idea. On the other hand, if we're printing
informational text, it's not an unreasonable thing.
regards, tom lane
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 21:47:49 +0100, Susanne Ebrecht <susanne@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Am 20.02.2012 21:22, schrieb Guillaume Lelarge: >> >> I don't see why the modifiers shouldn't be translatable. It's not as if >> they were intended to be copied and pasted in a query. They are here to >> help the user understand the different modifiers in each column. >> > > Of course they are intended to get copied and pasted. In support you > often ask > for output from \d tablename. And when I look to the languages that I > never learned, > especially when I look into Turkish - I would read NULL and not would > estimate column is > not NULL. > > Default and not null are keywords - they are valid sql syntax. > They are constraint definitions. > > When I output the table definition I want the constraint definition - I > don't want to translate it > back to english to understand - ahhhh default is meant. > If that's so, nothing should be translatable in psql. If you do \d, the second column is the relation type. I guess seeing vue instead of view won't help you, so we need to stop translating this. The table's title shouldn't be translatable too. Etc. If you want the english way, you already can do this. You just need to ask your customer to use "LANG=C psql" instead of psql. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
Am 20.02.2012 21:55, schrieb Tom Lane: > It seems to boil down to whether you think the "Modifiers" column > contains SQL, or a textual description of the column's properties. > I could go either way on that, but I notice that the existing code > is in the habit of truncating the default expression at 128 characters. > If we want to decide that we're printing real, copy-and-pastable SQL, > that seems like a bad idea. On the other hand, if we're printing > informational text, it's not an unreasonable thing. > > regards, tom lane > We might also have a culture difference here. I discovered it during a demonstration in my training class. The whole class laughed - when they read "Vorgabewert" instead of Default. Maybe Germans aren't used to have a translation here - Maybe French folk is used to have a translation here. Regards, Susanne -- Dipl. Inf. Susanne Ebrecht - 2ndQuadrant PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services www.2ndQuadrant.com
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 15:55:54 -0500, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> writes: >> On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 14:15:34 -0300, Alvaro Herrera >> <alvherre@commandprompt.com> wrote: >>> Excerpts from Susanne Ebrecht's message of s=C3=83=C2=A1b feb 18 18:11:= 54 -0300 >>>> I think that the constraint keyword "DEFAULT" should not be translated >>>> here. >=20 >> I don't see why the modifiers shouldn't be translatable. It's not as if >> they were intended to be copied and pasted in a query. They are here to >> help the user understand the different modifiers in each column. >=20 >> -1 to get rid of the translations. >=20 > It seems to boil down to whether you think the "Modifiers" column > contains SQL, or a textual description of the column's properties. > I could go either way on that, but I notice that the existing code > is in the habit of truncating the default expression at 128 characters. > If we want to decide that we're printing real, copy-and-pastable SQL, > that seems like a bad idea. On the other hand, if we're printing > informational text, it's not an unreasonable thing. >=20 My first move was that truncating to 128 characters was bad idea. But in a terminal, you have a limited number of columns, so it would make sense. And, to me, it's a textual description. Not SQL. BTW, if it was SQL, when I do \d tablename, I should get the complete SQL query to create the table, not a description of the table definition. So, yeah, sure, the "Modifiers" column doesn't contain SQL, it's a description. --=20 Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:14:32 +0100, Susanne Ebrecht <susanne@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Am 20.02.2012 21:55, schrieb Tom Lane: >> It seems to boil down to whether you think the "Modifiers" column >> contains SQL, or a textual description of the column's properties. >> I could go either way on that, but I notice that the existing code >> is in the habit of truncating the default expression at 128 characters. >> If we want to decide that we're printing real, copy-and-pastable SQL, >> that seems like a bad idea. On the other hand, if we're printing >> informational text, it's not an unreasonable thing. >> >> regards, tom lane >> > > We might also have a culture difference here. > > I discovered it during a demonstration in my training class. > The whole class laughed - when they read "Vorgabewert" instead of Default. > > Maybe Germans aren't used to have a translation here - Maybe French folk > is used to have a translation here. > French folks are used to have translations everywhere. And if they don't, they scream :) I don't say it's a good thing :) -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com
Am 20.02.2012 22:19, schrieb Guillaume Lelarge: > French folks are used to have translations everywhere. And if they don't, > they scream :) > > I don't say it's a good thing :) > > That is why I expected a culture difference here. I know that in French all get translated to French. That is the French culture - the French language - neither good nor bad. It is like it is. There are other languages that work similar to French. Languages like German, Dutch and others just work different. Germans often just take the English word and use it - and after a while you can find the English word in German thesaurus using German grammar. When the word made it into our thesaurus - then the English word finally got adopted as German word. Honestly, the problem Germans have with it is - thinking to beginners - when they read "Default" they know that there is a default constraint on it. When they read one of the translations for "default" - they don't know what is going on. You really need to translate to English to understand that it is a default constraint. Germans are confused from such kind of translations. It is more confusing for them as it will help them. I don't know if it is possible - but could it get split by language here. Translate in French but not in German or so. Susanne -- Dipl. Inf. Susanne Ebrecht - 2ndQuadrant PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training and Services www.2ndQuadrant.com
On Mon, 20 Feb 2012 22:49:16 +0100, Susanne Ebrecht <susanne@2ndquadrant.com> wrote: > Am 20.02.2012 22:19, schrieb Guillaume Lelarge: >> French folks are used to have translations everywhere. And if they don't, >> they scream :) >> >> I don't say it's a good thing :) >> >> > > That is why I expected a culture difference here. > I know that in French all get translated to French. > That is the French culture - the French language - neither good nor bad. > It is like it is. > There are other languages that work similar to French. > > Languages like German, Dutch and others just work different. > > Germans often just take the English word and use it - and after a while > you can find the > English word in German thesaurus using German grammar. > When the word made it into our thesaurus - then the English word finally > got adopted as > German word. > > Honestly, the problem Germans have with it is - thinking to beginners - > when they read > "Default" they know that there is a default constraint on it. When they > read one of the > translations for "default" - they don't know what is going on. You > really need to translate > to English to understand that it is a default constraint. > > Germans are confused from such kind of translations. It is more > confusing for them as > it will help them. > > I don't know if it is possible - but could it get split by language > here. Translate in French but > not in German or so. > Sure, just don't translate it in the german .po file. Or, better, use the same string. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com