2017-07-18 1:10 GMT+08:00 Junio C Hamano <gitster@xxxxxxxxx>:
> Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Commit cb71f8bdb5 ("PRItime: introduce a new "printf format" for
>> timestamps", 2017-04-21) does not play well with i18n framework. The
>> static string concatenation cannot be correctly interpreted by
>> gettext utilities, such as xgettext.
>>
>> Wrap PRItime in format_raw_time() function, so that we can extract
>> correct l10n messages into "po/git.pot".
>>
>> Reported-by: Jean-Noël Avila <jn.avila@xxxxxxx>
>> Signed-off-by: Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@xxxxxxxxx>
>> ...
>> @@ -191,6 +200,15 @@ struct date_mode *date_mode_from_type(enum date_mode_type type)
>> return &mode;
>> }
>>
>> +const char *format_raw_time(timestamp_t time)
>> +{
>> + static struct strbuf time_buf = STRBUF_INIT;
>> +
>> + strbuf_reset(&time_buf);
>> + strbuf_addf(&time_buf, "%"PRItime, time);
>> + return time_buf.buf;
>> +}
>
> Hmm.
>
> Two potential issues are:
>
> - After this patch, there still are quite a many
>
> printf("time is %"PRItime" ...\n", timestamp)
>
> so the burden on the programmers having to remember when it is
> required to use format_raw_time() becomes unclear, and makes the
> change/churn larger when an existing message needs to be marked
> for translation.
>
> - The static struct strbuf here is a cheap way to avoid leaks, but
> at the same time it is unfriendly to threaded code. We could
> instead do:
>
> void append_PRItime(struct strbuf *buf, timestamp_t time);
>
> to fix that trivially, but the damage to the caller obviously is
> much larger going this way.
>
I wonder if we can replace the original %lu for timestamp with PRIuMAX
instead. PRIuMAX works fine with gettext utils.
--
Jiang Xin
