[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: package.el strings
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
Re: package.el strings |
Date: |
Sat, 15 Jul 2017 15:52:23 +0300 |
> From: Jean-Christophe Helary <address@hidden>
> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2017 11:53:51 +0900
>
> It took me a lot longer than I thought but here is a diff for your comments.
> There is a dozen modifications in the file and a few comments.
Thanks for working in this. I have a few comments:
> @@ -1490,7 +1492,7 @@ package-import-keyring
> (setf (epg-context-home-directory context) package-gnupghome-dir))
> (message "Importing %s..." (file-name-nondirectory file))
> (epg-import-keys-from-file context file)
> - (message "Importing %s...done" (file-name-nondirectory file))))
> + (message "Importing %s... Done" (file-name-nondirectory file))))
Can you tell why this is needed? The current code is how we say this
in a lot of places, and I don't think I see why it's bad for l10n.
> - (format "%s packages will be installed:\n%s, proceed?"
> + (format "Number of packages to install: %s (%s), proceed? "
> (length available)
> - (mapconcat #'symbol-name available ", ")))
> + (mapconcat #'symbol-name available " ")))
You've removed the newline, so the prompt will wrap at some random
place. Is it really a good idea?
Also, I'd lose the "Number" part, and use %d for format, so it's clear
to translators that a number will follow.
> - (message "%s packages are not available (the rest already
> installed), maybe you need to `M-x package-refresh-contents'"
> + (message "Number of packages that are not available: %s (the rest is
> already installed), maybe you need to `M-x package-refresh-contents'"
Likewise here: I'd say "Packages not available: %d". Same issue with
some other replacements you propose.
> - (format "%s packages will be deleted:\n%s, proceed? "
> + (format "Number of packages to delete: %s (%s), proceed? "
> (length removable)
> - (mapconcat #'symbol-name removable ", ")))
> + (mapconcat #'symbol-name removable " ")))
And here.
> - (prin1 name)
> - (princ " is ")
> - (princ (if (memq (aref status 0) '(?a ?e ?i ?o ?u)) "an " "a "))
> - (princ status)
> - (princ " package.\n\n")
> + (let ((sentence (format "The status of package %S is `%s'.\n\n" name
> status)))
> + (princ sentence))
Too wordy for my liking. How about this:
(princ (format "Package %S is %s.\n\n" name status))
> - (concat
> - (when delete "Delete ")
> - (package-menu--list-to-prompt delete)
> - (when (and delete install)
> - (if upgrade "; " "; and "))
> - (when install "Install ")
> - (package-menu--list-to-prompt install)
> - (when (and upgrade (or install delete)) "; and ")
> - (when upgrade "Upgrade ")
> - (package-menu--list-to-prompt upgrade)
> - "? ")))
> + (format "Number of packages to delete: %s / install: %s / upgrade: %s,
> proceed? "
> + (package-menu--list-to-prompt delete)
> + (package-menu--list-to-prompt install)
> + (package-menu--list-to-prompt upgrade))))
This loses the feature of saying just what's needed, instead of
showing zero. Can we do better?