Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-09 Thread Jim Meyering
Andreas Schwab <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) writes: > >> Is there a special reason why you use fprintf (... , stdout) and >> fputs (stdout, ...) instead of printf and puts? > > Note that fputs (stdout) and puts are not the same. Good point. I'll bet that was why I

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-09 Thread Andreas Schwab
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) writes: > Is there a special reason why you use fprintf (... , stdout) and > fputs (stdout, ...) instead of printf and puts? Note that fputs (stdout) and puts are not the same. Andreas. -- Andreas Schwab, SuSE Labs, [EMAIL PROTECTED] SuSE Linux Products GmbH,

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-09 Thread Jim Meyering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: > On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 05:35:43PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: >> ... >> > file you extracted above is from the wc command. You can watch the genparse >> > generated parser for it from >> > http://genparse.sourcefo

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-09 Thread Michael Geng
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 05:35:43PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: > ... > > file you extracted above is from the wc command. You can watch the genparse > > generated parser for it from > > http://genparse.sourceforge.net/examples/wc_clp.c. > > It's nice to se

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-08 Thread Jim Meyering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: > On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:47:31AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: >> ... >> > The text is partitioned exactly as it is in the existing code of tail.c >> > (I'm >> > looking at a cvs archive copy from sept 9). This is

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-07 Thread Michael Geng
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 09:47:31AM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: > ... > > The text is partitioned exactly as it is in the existing code of tail.c (I'm > > looking at a cvs archive copy from sept 9). This is from tail.c: > > I think tail.c is still in sync, b

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-07 Thread Michael Geng
On Sun, Oct 07, 2007 at 02:48:43PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote: > Michael Geng wrote: > > > 1) The gettext documentation [1] recommends to not make the _() arguments > > > unnecessarily large. > > > > The text is partitioned exactly as it is in the existing code of tail.c > > (I'm > > looking at a

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-07 Thread Bruno Haible
Michael Geng wrote: > > 1) The gettext documentation [1] recommends to not make the _() arguments > > unnecessarily large. > > The text is partitioned exactly as it is in the existing code of tail.c (I'm > looking at a cvs archive copy from sept 9). This is from tail.c: > > fputs (_("\ >

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-07 Thread Michael Geng
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 05:35:43PM +0200, Jim Meyering wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: > ... > > file you extracted above is from the wc command. You can watch the genparse > > generated parser for it from > > http://genparse.sourceforge.net/examples/wc_clp.c. > > It's nice to se

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-07 Thread Jim Meyering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: ... > The text is partitioned exactly as it is in the existing code of tail.c (I'm > looking at a cvs archive copy from sept 9). This is from tail.c: I think tail.c is still in sync, but... Please don't use cvs anymore (use git instead). Something went wron

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-07 Thread Michael Geng
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 05:09:15PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote: > Michael Geng wrote: > > My intention is in fact to invoke xgettext on the parser files which > > genparse generates. ... You can watch the genparse > > generated parser for it from > > http://genparse.sourceforge.net/examples/wc_clp.

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-06 Thread Jim Meyering
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Geng) wrote: ... > file you extracted above is from the wc command. You can watch the genparse > generated parser for it from > http://genparse.sourceforge.net/examples/wc_clp.c. It's nice to see the continuing improvements. I noticed that you transformed the uses of f

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-06 Thread Bruno Haible
Michael Geng wrote: > My intention is in fact to invoke xgettext on the parser files which > genparse generates. ... You can watch the genparse > generated parser for it from > http://genparse.sourceforge.net/examples/wc_clp.c. OK, this kind of generated code is not bad; it's acceptable to have

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-06 Thread Michael Geng
On Sat, Oct 06, 2007 at 02:43:54PM +0200, Bruno Haible wrote: > Hello Michael, > > Regarding > http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2007-09/msg00129.html : > > How does the internationalization of the usage strings work? > > Usually generated files are not subject to xgettext scannin

Re: [PATCH] Command line parsing of ls, tail and wc with genparse

2007-10-06 Thread Bruno Haible
Hello Michael, Regarding http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-coreutils/2007-09/msg00129.html : How does the internationalization of the usage strings work? Usually generated files are not subject to xgettext scanning [1], only the source files are. (Otherwise when a translator wants to see so