11 apr 2013 kl. 14.24 skrev C. Michael Pilato:
On 04/11/2013 03:45 AM, Mattias Engdegård wrote:
[...]
3. The options that appear in the conflict prompt. These, I strongly
believe, should all be translated, since it is essentially a menu of
choices for the user. Note that this means that they will no longer
be
the same as those used for --accept, but this is also an advantage:
it
permits us to use proper English in the prompt, rather than
keywords such
as "mine-conflict", just like most translations do in 1.7.
Here we disagree. The conflict prompt choices are also symbols of a
command
language, and non-English users should treat them as such.
I take it that you disagree with the suggestion to translate the
user's replies, not the actual labels in the conflict prompt (which is
what I actually meant by the paragraph you quoted). Sorry expressing
myself badly.
This is no different than our use of letters and strings thereof for
our
responses. A new user of Subversion presented with this prompt will
*still*
have to read all the descriptions, *still* have to note the symbolic
response for the choice they wish to make, and *still* have to
reproduce
that response at the prompt. That the letters used in the response
symbols
happen to somewhat resemble the letters used in the description is
largely
disinteresting. They cognitive effort required to understand the
choices
and make one has already been paid by the time that detail is even
noticed,
if it ever is.
Do you really claim that any set of single- and two-letter codes is as
good as another? I don't think so -- I believe "p" to be better
answer for "postpone" than "4" or "mc" in English, one that will both
reach the state of memorisation much quicker and reduce the risk of
errors.
And if you would agree to that, why should we deny others the same
benefits?
