Nguyễn Thái Ngọc Duy <pclouds@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> if (flags & CONNECT_VERBOSE) {
> - fprintf_ln(stderr, "done.");
> - fprintf(stderr, "Connecting to %s (port %s) ... ", host, port);
> + /* TRANSLATORS: this is the end of "Looking up %s ... " */
> + fprintf_ln(stderr, _("done."));
> + fprintf(stderr, _("Connecting to %s (port %s) ... "), host, port);
I guess I misread the intention of what 01/23 did to this area and
misjudged its benefit when I said "we can share the same translation
for the same 'done.'"?
If you need to give guidance to translators to translate the same
"done." differently depending on what comes around it, perhaps we
shouldn't have split the original single message line into two. In
general, use of more fprintf_ln() in 01/23 smelled more like done
for the sake of using them more, than improving the code.
Yes, I know 9a0a30aa ("strbuf: convenience format functions with \n
automatically appended", 2012-04-23) claims that it is convenient
when "we do not want to expose \n to translators", but does not
justify why "not exposing \n" is a good idea in the first place, and
splitting fprintf(stderr, "done.\nConnecting to...") into two like
the above looks like it made more work for us without clear benefit.
So I dunno.
