From: Daniel Stenberg <daniel_at_haxx.se>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 11:32:05 +0200 (CEST)

On Sun, 27 Apr 2003 for_spam_at_gmx.de wrote:

(As a comment to TP Diffenbach, I don't understand why you would need to copy
a lot of strings. Using the ID number is enough and then you can use str(id)
at the places where you need the string instead.)

> i have often came accross mixed up menus, i.e. completly wrong strings at
> completly wrong positions which nearly made me going crazy.

This usually happens because people add strings to the english.lang file
somewhere else than last in the file. I think the reason for this limit is
obvious for the ones who consider this area for a while.

> for me, it seems, the current implementation of language_strings isn`t
> really bullet proof.

I guess that depends on how you define "bullet proof", but no, I would not
define it as that.

> I also find it annoying, that entries in .lang-files can occur at
> completely different positions for each language, and if you want to do
> some changes you constantly have to use your editor`s search feature.

That's called freedom for the editors. You're free to use any order in all
the files besides the original english one.

> I really would like it, if english and other langfiles would be in "sync."
> - line by line.

Why? The script 'uplang' helps translators by marking strings that have been
changed or added since the last time. Why do you need to have a particular
order?

-- 
 Daniel Stenberg -- http://rockbox.haxx.se/ -- http://daniel.haxx.se/

Received on 2003-04-28