On Wed, 2006-06-07 at 01:36, Geoffrey Keating wrote: > On 06/06/2006, at 5:25 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > > >> On 06/06/2006, at 5:20 PM, Andrew Pinski wrote: > >> > >>>> Right above, you said "We control the debug output machinery > >>>> generating this, and can simply tell it to only deal in one > >>>> language." Here, you seem to be implying that the messages > >>>> should be > >>>> localised in the language the compiler is going to output messages > >>>> in. I suppose you could output both, but that still bloats object > >>>> files more than just using numbers. > >>> > >>> Just output in English and let the IDE or the other tools translate > >>> it. > >> > >> What's the difference between that and just outputting a number and > >> letting the IDE or other tool translate it? Either way, you're going > >> to need a fixed set of strings or numbers to translate. > > > > Say I want to add a new one, I have to go through a committee with the > > number system while with a string I don't. > > I don't see how making it a string makes this different. Either your > new string will be a standard string or it won't. Either your new > number will be a standard number or it won't. If you want it to be > standard, you have to go through the committee.
If I'm using a french translation and I see 'Variable optimized away' I might get irritated but I can try to translate it. If I see <translation-of>'Unrecognized optimization code 33' I've got no chance. Using string codes allows a more relaxed propagation model for the translations (provided we don't keep tweaking the strings). R.
