[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Strange Plural in PowerDevil
From:       Albert Astals Cid <aacid () kde ! org>
Date:       2011-01-11 23:17:11
Message-ID: 201101112317.12112.aacid () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

A Dilluns, 10 de gener de 2011, Frederik Schwarzer va escriure:
> On 10 January 2011 01:52, Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> wrote:
> > A Diumenge, 9 de gener de 2011, Frederik Schwarzer va escriure:
> >> On 9 January 2011 23:02, Freek de Kruijf <f.de.kruijf@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Op zondag 9 januari 2011 22:52:57 schreef Frederik Schwarzer:
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >> 
> >> >> there is a string with a plural where I wonder if this is valid
> >> >> plural handling stuff:
> >> >> 
> >> >> #: powerdevilcore.cpp:191
> >> >> #, kde-format
> >> >> msgid ""
> >> >> "Your battery capacity is %2%. This means your battery is broken and
> >> >> needs a " "replacement. Please contact your hardware vendor for more
> >> >> details." msgid_plural ""
> >> >> "One of your batteries (ID %3) has a capacity of %2%. This means it
> >> >> is broken " "and needs a replacement. Please contact your hardware
> >> >> vendor for more " "details."
> >> >> 
> >> >> Regards
> >> > 
> >> > Looks OK to me.
> >> > 
> >> > The first message is when you have one battery in your system. %1,
> >> > which is not used, contains 1. The identification in %3 is not needed
> >> > because there is only one battery.
> >> > The plural is used when %1 is not 1. In that case %3 contains the
> >> > identification of the battery which is faulty.
> >> 
> >> Yes but is that what the plural handling is for?
> >> I mean, if your language has 9 different plural forms then
> >> you get nine diferent strings. In this case, plural handling seems
> >> inappropriate since there are only two cases no matter what.
> >> 
> >> "One of your batteries" is not a plural case.
> > 
> > You are right, but the problem is not languages with 9 plurals that
> > "only" have to do some additional boring work, the problem is languages
> > with no plurals in which the plural form will never be used.
> > 
> > The question is, is it worth breaking the freeze at this late stage?
> 
> There are two messages.
> The already mentioned powerdevilcore.cpp:191 and another one in
> powerdevilcore.cpp:204. I think it's too close to the release to break
> string freeze for that. But maybe it's worth doing it for 4.6.1?

Yeah. Makes sense.

Albert

> 
> Regards
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]