Re: [RFC PATCH 0/5] Localise error headers

From: Duy Nguyen <pclouds@gmail.com>
Date: Jan 20, 2017, 13:08 UTC
Message-ID: <CACsJy8BRdd4f7f7+7XyN8jd69GS6tnkEGhw05F=7c96eViRVQg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqq1sw9piz5.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> wrote:

Show 19 quoted lines

> Jeff King <peff@peff.net> writes:
>
>> Yes, I would think die_errno() is a no-brainer for translation, since
>> the strerror() will be translated.
>>
>>>     apply.c:                die(_("internal error"));
>>>
>>> That is funny, too. I think we should substitute that with
>>>
>>>     die("BUG: untranslated, but what went wrong instead")
>>
>> Yep. We did not consistently use "BUG:" in the early days. I would say
>> that "BUG" lines do not need to be translated. The point is that nobody
>> should ever see them, so it seems like there is little point in giving
>> extra work to translators.
>
> In addition, "BUG: " is relatively recent introduction to our
> codebase.  Perhaps having a separate BUG(<string>) function help the
> distinction further?

I was going to write the same thing. On top of that I wonder if have enough "if (something) die("BUG:")" to justify stealing BUG_ON() from kernel (better than assert since the condition will always be evaluated).

-- 
Duy