On Thursday 02 November 2017 07:51 PM, Eric Sunshine wrote:
Nicely explained; easily understood.
Good to hear that.
Translators can correct me, but this smells like "sentence lego"[1],
which we'd like to avoid. Translators lack full context when presented
with bits and pieces of a sentence like this, thus the translation may
be of poor quality; it may even be entirely incorrect since they don't
necessarily know how you will be composing the various pieces.
You _might_ be able to able to resolve this by dropping "and" from:
"foo is moo, and bar is boo"
to turn the error messages into independent clauses:
"foo is moo; bar is boo"
> but I'm no translator, and even that may fail the lego sniff test.
Though I can't be very sure that the one you suggested will pass the
"lego sniff test", its better than the "and" I used. Further, my
instinct says it wouldn't qualify as sentence lego (it's just a ";").
A sure-fire way to avoid lego construction would be simply to emit
each messages on its own line:
fatal: branch 'tset' doesn't exist
fatal: branch 'master' already exists
(though, you might consider that too ugly).
Though it might not look that ugly, I don't know how you could make
'git' die() twice (or am I missing something)! Of course we could use
'error()' to report the errors and then 'die()' with a message like
"Branch rename failed" but I find that to be a little too verbose and
further using the connector ";" instead of "and" does seem to reduce the
possibilities for the above program fragment to pass the "lego sniff test".
---
Kaartic
