From: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>
Date: Fri, 20 May 2016 17:59:17 GMT
Subject: Re: [PATCH 19/21] t9003: become resilient to GETTEXT_POISON
Message-ID: <xmqqh9dsehl6.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>
In-Reply-To: <xmqqoa80ei03.fsf@gitster.mtv.corp.google.com>

Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com> writes:

> Vasco Almeida <vascomalmeida@sapo.pt> writes:
>
>> Alternatively, we could leave sed alone as it were before this patch and
>> use test_i18ngrep instead of grep to fake success under GETTEXT_POISON.
>> I think I prefer this way. What do you think?
>
> That is equivalent to saying that "we would translate 'lgf' to
> end-user's language", which does not make much sense to me.
>
> Wouldn't the introductory explanation, up to "Did you mean this?",
> be the only thing that is translated?

I just checked the code ;-)  We do this:

	fprintf_ln(stderr,
		   Q_("\nDid you mean this?",
		      "\nDid you mean one of these?",
		   n));

	for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
		fprintf(stderr, "\t%s\n", main_cmds.names[i]->name);

Using test_i18ngrep would mean we would not be able to catch a
potential future bug that does an equivalent of

	for (i = 0; i < n; i++)
		fprintf(stderr, "\t%s\n", _(main_cmds.names[i]->name));

in the loop, i.e. marking something that is not meant to be
translated as translatable.

As long as translators do not translate "Did you mean..." to begin a
line with a tab (which I do not think there is any reason to), it is
going to work reliably to grep for "^ lgf$" here, and it will catch
such a potential future bug under GETTEXT_POISON build.