From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: i18n/l10n summary Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 07:27:10 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <0aca6c65-4610-44c2-99c4-6cbe7aa68c9a@default> References: NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1495981675 31797 195.159.176.226 (28 May 2017 14:27:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 28 May 2017 14:27:55 +0000 (UTC) To: Jean-Christophe Helary , emacs-devel Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun May 28 16:27:51 2017 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1dEzAc-0008Bu-MI for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 16:27:50 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:44126 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dEzAi-0003oa-0n for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 10:27:56 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60711) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dEzA6-0003oJ-0h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 10:27:19 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dEzA2-0001SC-Sx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 10:27:18 -0400 Original-Received: from aserp1040.oracle.com ([141.146.126.69]:51845) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dEzA2-0001S8-Iw for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 28 May 2017 10:27:14 -0400 Original-Received: from aserv0022.oracle.com (aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]) by aserp1040.oracle.com (Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2/Sentrion-MTA-4.3.2) with ESMTP id v4SERCRk000305 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 28 May 2017 14:27:12 GMT Original-Received: from aserv0122.oracle.com (aserv0122.oracle.com [141.146.126.236]) by aserv0022.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4SERBN3009994 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sun, 28 May 2017 14:27:12 GMT Original-Received: from abhmp0007.oracle.com (abhmp0007.oracle.com [141.146.116.13]) by aserv0122.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v4SERBWA024459; Sun, 28 May 2017 14:27:11 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 12.0.6767.5000 (x86)] X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.4.x-2.6.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 141.146.126.69 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:215283 Archived-At: > The discussion so far seems to point at modifying 'message' and > the likes so that developers don't have to bother=C2=A0with any l10n > mechanism on their part (besides for writing clean strings). (Caveat: I haven't been following this thread at all, so ignore if not helpful.) Is the idea that something will be done so that, for example, `message' automatically uses a translation of the message to the user's currently preferred language? I.e., if that is what is planned, isn't it perhaps too systematic - all or nothing? If so, then perhaps there should be a way to easily, from Lisp, specify the target language explicitly - e.g. by an optional `message' argument or (better, because the scope is controllable without changing the `message' calls) by binding a variable. This, as opposed to automatically and always just making `message' target whatever language is currently being used/preferred by the user. And in that case, there should perhaps be a user option that overrides such a language choice by Lisp code. IOW, in general, let code control the language for a given `message' call or for a given scope (by a variable), but let a user customize Emacs to say whether to allow this.