Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c
От | Tom Lane |
---|---|
Тема | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 8183.1005182472@sss.pgh.pa.us обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Ответы |
Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes: > Now back to reality. I think passing in the noun phrase as you suggested > should be okay: I'm happy to do it that way if you prefer, but I'm a tad baffled as to why it solves anything other than word-order issues. Seems like the inflection issues are still there. > It loses some elegance, but it should allow grammatically sound > translations. (Okay, we assume that all languages allow for parenthetical > notes, but that is not a matter of grammar.) What I'm intending is to pass in the noun phrase and the PID, allowing the translatable messages in the subroutine to look like %s (pid %d) exited with status %d A variant would be to pass in the adjective for "process": %s process (pid %d) exited with status %d Does that seem better, worse, indifferent? If the inflection issues reach to the root noun but not the adjectives, methinks that might work better. regards, tom lane
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: