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

List:       kde-i18n-doc
Subject:    Re: Strange Plural in PowerDevil
From:       Frederik Schwarzer <schwarzerf () gmail ! com>
Date:       2011-01-30 21:07:39
Message-ID: AANLkTinsvX4+9RgNciioqsMdPY7t0yZb2ecN36o6ma81 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

On 12/01/2011, Albert Astals Cid <aacid@kde.org> wrote:
> 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.

I just submitted an atempt to fix this to reviewboard:
http://svn.reviewboard.kde.org/r/6431/

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