On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 23:12:40 +0300 Hleb Valoshka wrote: > On 8/27/13, Francesco Poli <invernom...@paranoici.org> wrote: > >> After some bisection, it has been introduced in upstream commit > >> ef467007b, first appeared in version 2.3.0. This looks intentional. > > Intentional? Doesn't this break compatibility with msgmerge ? > > May be we can use patch based on > https://github.com/ruby-gettext/gettext/pull/18?
Hi Hleb, thanks for following up. It's definitely possible that I am misunderstanding something here, but... I was under the impression that compatibility with GNU gettext was a design goal of ruby-gettext. What's the point of doubling the backslashes in newline characters, anyway? I thought that the strings to be translated should be inserted basically unchanged into the .pot file... > (But to remove > Plural-Forms doesn't seems to be a good idea) Definitely not a good idea, in my humble opinion. And what's the rationale, anyway? I think GNU gettext supports Plural-Forms, hence you won't get GNU gettext compatibility, if you remove Plural-Forms. Quite the opposite, I would say. Or am I completely off-track? -- http://www.inventati.org/frx/frx-gpg-key-transition-2010.txt New GnuPG key, see the transition document! ..................................................... Francesco Poli . GnuPG key fpr == CA01 1147 9CD2 EFDF FB82 3925 3E1C 27E1 1F69 BFFE
pgpNw3Gg744Ui.pgp
Description: PGP signature
