Peter N. Lundblad wrote:
>On Fri, 16 Apr 2004, Erik Huelsmann wrote:
>
>...
>
>
>>c) no duplication of supporting libraries (for example iconv as mentioned by
>>Brane)
>>d) minimal new code written for Subversion (the desire not to write our own
>>gettext implementation comes to mind)
>>
>>
>...
>
>
>>To comment on (3) I must say I agree with Brane that it would be problematic
>>if two iconv libraries would be required to get gettext incorporated on
>>Windows. This is why I like Sander's idea of adding a libapr_l10n to apr (if
>>they want to accept that) to complete the already set of libraries (which
>>includes libapr_iconv ofcourse). Brane's desire not to want to link in more
>>libraries seemed like an extra argument to go this way. Yet doing so would
>>definitely conflict with requirement (d).
>>
>>
>>
>
>This idea might be to "reinvent the wheel", but anyway...
>
>When I worked on OpenJade some years ago, we used gettext for l10n, but
>not on Windows. INstead, we used a script to put the translations in
>Windows resource files. We could do womething similar, and compile each
>translation into its own DLL. Then we wouldn't need the gettext runtime at
>all. ONe would still need the tools for development however.
>
>
Please no, that's a most horrible idea. Gettext is more than just
message translation; you'd have to reimplement the whole ngettext logic
on Windows, for example, and we _don't_ want to have this kind of code
in Subversion.
In the absence of apr_libintl, we'll use gettext's libintl.
-- Brane
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Received on Tue Apr 20 02:13:16 2004