On Sat, Mar 30, 2024 at 11:43:40PM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Rubén Justo <rjusto@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
> >> > for (cp = buf.buf; *cp; cp = np) {
> >> > np = strchrnul(cp, '\n');
> >> > - fprintf(stderr, _("%shint: %.*s%s\n"),
> >> > + fprintf(stderr, _("%shint:%s%.*s%s\n"),
> >> > advise_get_color(ADVICE_COLOR_HINT),
> >> > + (np == cp) ? "" : " ",
> >> > (int)(np - cp), cp,
> >> > advise_get_color(ADVICE_COLOR_RESET));
> >
> > Thinking again on this I wonder, while we're here, if we could go further
> > and move the "hint" literal to the args, to ease the translation work:
> > - fprintf(stderr, _("%shint:%s%.*s%s\n"),
> > + fprintf(stderr, "%s%s:%s%.*s%s\n",
> > advise_get_color(ADVICE_COLOR_HINT),
> > + _("hint"),
> > (np == cp) ? "" : " ",
> > (int)(np - cp), cp,
> > advise_get_color(ADVICE_COLOR_RESET));
>
> It is not guaranteed that any and all languages want to use a colon
> immediately after translation of "hint"; the current message string
> with or without my patch allows translators adjust that part to the
> target language, but your version will force them to always use only
> a colon there. Is that an improvement? I somehow do not think so.
I was just thinking if leaving the format open to the translation is a
sane option. Maybe we can move the colon to the literal in the args,
too.
In any case, the patch is OK as it is.
