On Wednesday 23 October 2024 02:22:51 Pacific Daylight Time Ivan Solovev via Development wrote: > Hi Thiago, > > first of all, could you please clarify, how do you see the potential > implementation? > Do you think that we can reuse some of the things that std::format > provides, or do we need to write everything from scratch?
Unfortunately, I think we'll need the entire parsing and constructing done from scratch. I hope that we can use std::format_string and some of the harness code to handle args. I don't think we'll need std::basic_format_string<char16_t>. The l10n'able strings in the source code are in UTF-8, as are the messages for the logging system. > For my patches that add std::format support to QByteArray(View), > I implemented a parser that is compatible with standard format specifier for > string types, which is just a small subset of > https://eel.is/c++draft/format.string.std I'll take a look. How much of std::format-related classes could you use? If one of the parameters is a std::chrono::duration, are you able to use the std::formatter? > And I still used std::format to do the actual formatting, because I > didn't want to mess with width and padding on my own. For numbers, I agree. For strings, I question the usefulness. > > a) keep the "n" and make it mandatory, as in {n} > > If we use std::format, then we cannot do it, because it does the > argument index parsing on its own, and delegates to a custom formatter > specialization after that. And argument index can only be a non-negative > integer value. Ok, so if we use their parser, the number must be {0} or the only, right? How do we communicate to translators and tooling that this a plural form? Should we bring this to SG16 and ask for their long-term idea (C++26 or 29)? > > That is, could they replace a "{1:%X}" time representation with > > "{1:%H}:{1:02%M}" ? > > With std::format you can use the same argument index multiple times, so > it makes sense to allow it. I understand, but the question was for l10n: does it make sense to allow this? If it doesn't for them, then we don't have to do. If it is easy to implement anyway, then repetition is a moot point. But you didn't answer the important part of the question: the padding and filling. The original string in Engineering English was {:%T}, which means no padding and no filling. Are the translators allowed to change it? -- Thiago Macieira - thiago.macieira (AT) intel.com Principal Engineer - Intel DCAI Platform & System Engineering
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
-- Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
