Kevin Ryde wrote: > > - For guile, the code and doc regarding FORMAT in SLIB are not relevant > > any more? > > Oh, well, if it's withdrawn from slib then there's nothing for guile > to stay compatible with. > > > - The guile FORMAT attempts to be an extension of Common Lisp FORMAT, > > i.e. that all CL format directives are supported without changes > > (except when documented otherwise, such as ~_)? > > Yes, basically, I think. There's some things missing though, like ~< ~>. > > > - Differences in behaviour between a valid CL format string and the > > same string in guile (except when documented otherwise) are bugs in > > format.scm that I should report? > > Yep. I think there's some doubtful treatment of digits in some of the > floating point output, that's the sort of thing that really ought to > be the same as CL. > > > - The reference to which I can point translators is the node > > "Formatted Output" in the guile documentation? > > For guile, yes. What other schemes are doing is another matter.
Thanks for these answers. I have updated gettext's format-scheme.c accordingly. > srfi-28 and srfi-48 specify versions of format too. In the latter ~t > is different, and ~h is an addition. Hmm, the differences between guile's 'format' and SRFI-48 are going to be a problem in the long run. Also a problem is that some programs might be using the simple-format, but xgettext doesn't know about this (since the function name is still 'format'), and when the translator puts in translations with ~:* and the like, the simple-format will not support it. I see no solution for it so far, other than mentioning in the doc that the simple format is unsuitable for internationalization. Bruno _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
