Re: [RFA/RFC] extract strings from m4 skeletons

[Paolo Bonzini]

> > In the other case, instead of saying "%define variable `foo'" we have to
> > say `%define foo'" to make the translator's life easier.  The
> > problematic case occurred in bison.m4, but I did the same change to the
> > wording in parse-gram.y too, for consistency.
>
> Is there no way to expand macros or whatever during your extraction, so
> that the nicer "%%code qualifier `%s' not used" message ends up in the
> strings file?  I'm slightly concerned we're losing the extra 'variable'
> and 'qualifier' words from messages here, which may make them less
> clear.

I think it's a matter of personal judgement, as usual.  First of all, 
for the translator there is no difference: it does *not* make the 
localizable strings harder to grok.  Previously it was "%s `%s' not 
used", now it is "`%s %s' not used".  Stuff within quotes is usually not 
a translatable term, s gaving the two %s's within the quotes is 
reassuring to the translator.  Instead, if they see a %s outside quotes 
they have to look at the source and understand what are the possible 
replacements for the %s.  Then they have to find a shape for the 
translated sentence that fits them all.

The important point is whether it is worse for the user.  To me, 
"%define variable `%s' not used" is more readable than "`%define %s' not 
used".  But on the other hand, "`%code %s' not used" is more readable 
than "%code qualifier `%s' not used".  It's the whole section that ended 
up being unused, the reference to the qualifier seem spurious to me.  If 
I have to choose one format only, I'd go for the one that is used after 
the patch.

Paolo