On 15.01.2013 21:13, Tom Lane wrote:
Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakan...@vmware.com> writes:
On 15.01.2013 20:29, Tom Lane wrote:
But you already introduced "none" as a stand-alone (and probably almost
untranslatable without context) string. That's better?
I figured it would be. One little untranslated string in parens, versus
the whole is untranslated. I'm happy to change it if you feel otherwise,
though, I don't feel strongly about it myself.
Well, I shouldn't be opining too strongly on translatability issues.
Other people would have much-better-qualified opinions as to how well
it'll read if "none" has to be translated by itself.
But as to the behavior when the new message hasn't been translated yet:
the only case where anyone would see the untranslated message is if they
were in fact not connected, which we know is a seldom-exercised corner
case (else this bug would've been noticed long ago). So it might not be
worth arguing about. But ISTM that somebody whose English was weak
might not grasp that "none" (untranslated) wasn't meant to be a name.
Hmm, I wonder if an empty string would be better? It'd look a bit odd,
but at least it would not mislead you to think you're connected to a
database called "none".
- Heikki
--
Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
