|
Rockbox mail archiveSubject: RE: .lang filesRE: .lang files
From: Stuart Tedford <stuart.tedford_at_piresearch.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 11:23:01 +0100 I have used multiple run-time language support in an embedded system before. That system used an id to lookup a string in a language file, basically the same principle as Daniel is proposing. I see no issues using this system for RockBox. The only thing is that the id needs to be very descriptive - preferably implement some naming convention for the id constants. I think this has been discussed before. ie. LANG_ID_NNN where NNN is as close to the actual string as possible, eg. LANG_ID_HELLO_WORLD. The embedded system I had the pleasure of working with before just used magic numbers which was a complete and utter nightmare. I beleive we should use an id to lookup the string, rather than string matching - we just don't have that much processing time to waste. As long as an id convention is policed :-), then this is a far better solution for RockBox. Question: How will this system handle printf format strings? - eg. we can't put %d in the id macro name. Stu. > -----Original Message----- > From: Florian Mösch [mailto:fmoesch_at_web.de] > Sent: 16 September 2002 10:46 > To: rockbox_at_cool.haxx.se > Subject: Re: .lang files > > > > Ok, we've had some time to discuss and think things over, > and now I really > > only want really well-thought objections with motivations > why this language > > file format is bad: > > You've already got my well-thought objections before. I told > you precisely > why I would prefer using a standard format with exactly the > same benefits > as your proprietary approch. I won't repeat it again. > > > A single file for each language. Plain text. > > Exactly what I was thinking of... > > > Example: > > [...] > > o id would be the ID to use in the source when this string > is wanted. The > > code should use str(id) to get the particular string. > > gettext sources usually use something like > #include "gettext.h" > and > #define _( x ) gettext( x ) > and in the sources something like > printf( _("Hello World.\n") ); > which is (I think so) very readable and very compact. > I like it more than > printf( str(HELLO_WORLD) ); > but this is only my opinion... > > > o desc would be a volountary/optional description of the phrase > > ... which I think is not necessary if you use "speaking" IDs > or use the > original string as ID and include a reference to the sources as a > comment in the language file. The reference to the source > should not be > optional but mandatory. > > > [...] > > The order of these keywords are important. They should only > come in the order > > as stated above (to make writing scripts for this easier). > > I really don't want to restart tis discussion ..... > > > I'll soon bring on my initial scripts and language files > that follow this > > format. > > .... as *big boss* (TM) seems to have made his decision. Sorry for my > complaints. But I'm still wondering why he sends "requests > for comments" > if he doesn't like critics. > > Florian. > Received on 2002-09-16 Page template was last modified "Tue Sep 7 00:00:02 2021" The Rockbox Crew -- Privacy Policy |