On Thu, Oct 19, 2023 at 09:05:38PM +0000, waffl3x wrote:
> Okay so taking what you guys are saying here it sounds like it would be
> appropriate to refactor the code I was reluctant to refactor. The code
> (in grokfndecl) conditionally selects one of the two (now three with my
> changes) following strings despite them being mostly identical.
>
> "non-member function %qD cannot have cv-qualifier"
> "static member function %qD cannot have cv-qualifier"
> "explicit object member function %qD cannot have cv-qualifier"
>
> >From what I'm getting from what you two have said is that it would be
> reasonable to instead construct a string from it's two parts, just
> selecting the differing part dynamically.
>
> "%s function %qD cannot have cv-qualifier"
No, that wouldn't be appropriate for translation.
None of non-member, static member and explicit object member are
something that should be printed verbatim untranslated.
"%s function %qD cannot have cv-qualifier", _("non-member")
etc. is still inappropriate, some language might need to reorder
the words in one case and not another one etc.
What is ok if that %s (but in that case better %qs) is say some
language keyword which shouldn't be translated.
"%qs keyword not expected"
with
the arg being "inline", "constexpr", "consteval" for example would
be fine.
Jakub
