Am 15.04.19 um 01:29 schrieb Eric Sunshine:
> On Sun, Apr 14, 2019 at 5:10 PM Thomas Gummerer <t.gummerer@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> + strbuf_remove(&line, 0, 4);
>> + if (!strcmp(filename_a.buf, "/dev/null")) {
>> + strbuf_addstr(&buf, "new file ");
>> + strbuf_addbuf(&buf, &line);
>> + } else if (!strcmp(line.buf, "/dev/null")) {
>> + strbuf_addstr(&buf, "removed file ");
>> + strbuf_addbuf(&buf, &line);
>> + } else if (strbuf_cmp(&filename_a, &line)) {
>> + strbuf_addstr(&buf, "renamed file ");
>> + strbuf_addbuf(&buf, &filename_a);
>> + strbuf_addstr(&buf, " -> ");
>> + strbuf_addbuf(&buf, &line);
>> + } else {
>> + strbuf_addstr(&buf, "modified file ");
>> + strbuf_addbuf(&buf, &line);
>> + }
>
> All of these disposition strings end with "file", which seems
> redundant. Short and sweet "new", "removed", "renamed", "modified"
> provide just as much useful information.
>
> Also, should these strings be localizable? Alternately, rather than
> using prose to describe the disposition, perhaps do so symbolically
> (thus universally), say with "+", "-", "->", "*" (or ""),
> respectively?
When the strings are translated, it would be preferable to not do this
sentence lego at all and have format strings that are filled with the
values.
Then the noise word "file" is probably not that bad, in particular, when
translators tend to not add words that they don't see in the original.
For example, German translations of "new %s" I anticipate "neues %s",
"%s (neu)", "neu %s", all of which are awkward, but translations of "new
file %s" lends itself naturally to "neue Datei %s", which is fine.
-- Hannes
