Jean-Noël AVILA <jn.avila@xxxxxxx> writes:
>> Don't we want the literal `--pathspec-from-file` outside the format
>> string to prevent it from l10n? Or have all the changes in this
>> series to turn _("use '--concrete-option-name' in message") into
>> _("use '%s' in message") with '--concrete-option-name' as an
>> argument done only to reduce the number of distinct format strings?
>
> The idea was to apply the '%s' shifting only to strings that can be
> factorized,
> in order to curb the number of translatable strings.
OK, that's fine.
> Anyway, swiching from
>
> die(_("use '--concrete-option-name' in message"))
>
> into
>
> die(_("use option '%s' in message"), "--concrete-option-name")
>
> in a more generic way fits perfectly in the spirit I had for this series.
Yes, but I do not mind leaving it outside the scope of this
immediate series and see a separate topic to clean them up once the
dust from this series settles.
> On the other hand, the patch list is already quite large and this logic won't
> be extended to every other candidate strings that are not already changed
> here. That may be the object of another series.
Yup.
Thanks.
