| From: | Peter Smith <smithpb2250(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
| Cc: | PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Redundant/mis-use of _(x) gettext macro? |
| Date: | 2026-04-28 01:57:00 |
| Message-ID: | CAHut+PtsPumPOLLK0UZS_VA84qf-9sw8mzfpHOxbSLt7UKt3WA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Fri, Apr 24, 2026 at 10:14 PM Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> wrote:
>
> On 2026-Apr-24, Peter Smith wrote:
>
> > OK. Including the comma within a larger translated string seems like a
> > better idea.
> >
> > Since you now have the list `length`, I wondered why not simplify
> > further to use list_nth indexing? Then you can remove
> > `foreach_current_index` and `lc`.
>
> WFM.
>
> > Also, why did you choose to implement `last` versus `first` logic?
> > e.g. How about this?
>
> > {
> > if (first)
> > appendStringInfo(dest, _("\"%s\""), pubname);
> > else
> > appendStringInfo(dest, _(", \"%s\""), pubname);
> > }
>
> I don't know, it just seemed more natural. The whole ", foo" style
> simply feels weird to me. It seems a matter of choice only though, so
> if you feel strongly about this, I'm not opposed.
>
Personally, I prefer `first` logic because
a) The length of the list is not required up-front
b) At each iteration, the built string makes sense instead of always
having a dangling ',' until the final iteration
But it is not a big deal. This thread is about the translation part,
so whatever way makes the most sense for translators is fine with me.
======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith
Fujitsu Australia
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alena Rybakina | 2026-04-28 02:16:29 | Re: Vacuum statistics |
| Previous Message | Bharath Rupireddy | 2026-04-28 01:40:00 | Re: Fix race condition in pg_get_publication_tables with concurrent DROP TABLE |