From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2012 18:30:10 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH] i18n: disable i18n for shell scripts if NO_GETTEXT defined
Message-ID: <7vhazrk0jx.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org>
In-Reply-To: <4F17C294.6010004@viscovery.net>

Johannes Sixt <j.sixt@viscovery.net> writes:

> ... We have, e.g., NO_MMAP, and I can set it to request
> that some alternative is used, even if I have a working mmap(). The option
> name "NO_GETTEXT" is in exactly the same spirit.
>
>> In the current approach we take for shell scripts, we cannot have "No i18n
>> whatsoever and messages are emit with printf and echo". We always have to
>> go through gettext/eval_gettext even though they may be an implementation
>> that does not do i18n at all.
>
> Just like we go through _() in C code, even though there may be an
> implementation that does not do i18n at all, right?

Yes, just like that. The small detail that _() can be #define'd out to
empty while gettext/eval_gettext cannot be made to be no-impact like that
does not really matter.

> In C, it is easy, in shell code it may be more involved.

Correct.