From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c |
Date: | 2001-11-08 01:21:12 |
Message-ID: | 8183.1005182472@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Now back to reality. I think passing in the noun phrase as you suggested
> should be okay:
I'm happy to do it that way if you prefer, but I'm a tad baffled as to
why it solves anything other than word-order issues. Seems like the
inflection issues are still there.
> It loses some elegance, but it should allow grammatically sound
> translations. (Okay, we assume that all languages allow for parenthetical
> notes, but that is not a matter of grammar.)
What I'm intending is to pass in the noun phrase and the PID, allowing
the translatable messages in the subroutine to look like
%s (pid %d) exited with status %d
A variant would be to pass in the adjective for "process":
%s process (pid %d) exited with status %d
Does that seem better, worse, indifferent? If the inflection issues
reach to the root noun but not the adjectives, methinks that might
work better.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | tgl | 2001-11-08 04:05:18 | pgsql/src bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c int ... |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-11-08 00:26:31 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | D'Arcy J.M. Cain | 2001-11-08 01:50:28 | Re: Proposal: 7.2b2 today |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-11-08 00:26:31 | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c |