On 2004-11-09T18:19-0000, Gary V. Vaughan wrote: ) Ralf Wildenhues wrote: ) > * Gary V. Vaughan wrote on Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 03:24:25PM CET: ) >>3.5. While we are there, maybe internationalise libltdl? ) > Please don't. If you do, make it possible to have zero(!) overhead for ) > ltdl users if they choose not to make use of the translation capability. ) Do you mean zero runtime overhead? That's easy, and fairly standard already: ) ) #ifndef _ ) # ifdef ENABLE_NLS ) # include <libintl.h> ) # define _(Text) gettext ((Text)) ) # else ) # define _(Text) (Text) ) # endif ) #endif ) ) There are a few other tweaks that need to be done (see CVS M4), but for ) brevity I'll spare you the details :-) ) ) Obviously message catalogues and the like will make the distribution bigger ) though.
As this trick takes effect at compile time, would this require that an embedded libltdl grow in size even if the functionality is never used? If so, I think the point is to allow packagers who embed libltdl in other packages to choose a prenoninternationalized version (so the noni18n occurs at repackaging time rather than compile time). -- Daniel Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://people.redhat.com/djr/ http://naim.n.ml.org/ The open source world considers many of its large projects as benevolent dictatorships. It's a democracy only in the sense that cyberspace is infinite so anyone who doesn't like it can move out. -- Alan Cox _______________________________________________ Libtool mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/libtool
