On Wed, Sep 05, 2012 at 05:25:25PM +0700, Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 12:26 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Nguyen Thai Ngoc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> >
> >>> +static void output_exclude(const char *path, struct exclude *exclude)
> >>> +{
> >>> + char *type = exclude->to_exclude ? "excluded" : "included";
> >>> + char *bang = exclude->to_exclude ? "" : "!";
> >>> + char *dir = (exclude->flags & EXC_FLAG_MUSTBEDIR) ? "/" : "";
> >>> + printf(_("%s: %s %s%s%s "), path, type, bang, exclude->pattern, dir);
> >>
> >> These English words "excluded" and "included" make the translator me
> >> want to translate them. But they could be the markers for scripts, so
> >> they may not be translated. How about using non alphanumeric letters
> >> instead?
> >
> > I agree they should not be translated, but it is a disease to think
> > unintelligible mnemonic is a better input format for scripts than
> > the spelled out words. "excluded/included" pair is just fine.
>
> Not all mnemonic is unintelligible though. "+" and "-" may fit well in
> this case. I'm just trying to make sure we have checked the mnemonic
> pool before ending up with excluded/included.
Personally I'd be against introducing "+" and "-" when we already have
"!" and "". Even though "+" and "-" are more intuitive, it would
create inconsistency and IMHO confusion.
I'm still unconvinced that it's worth having a separate type field in
the output when the pattern field already has a "!" prefix for
inclusions. Does a separate field really help porcelain writers or
make the output more readable?
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html