On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 03:57:47PM +0200, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> Hi Florian,
> 
> Could you create an account on Savannah so we can give you commit
> access?
> 

Done.  My username is pelzflorian.


> > +(define (sgettext x)
> > +  "After choosing an identifier for marking s-expressions for
> > +translation, make it usable by defining a macro with it calling
> > +sgettext.  If for example the chosen identifier is G_,
> > +use (define-syntax G_ sgettext)."
> > +  (syntax-case x ()
> > +    ((id exp)
> > +     (let* ((msgid (sexp->msgid (syntax->datum #'exp)))
> > +            (new-exp (deconstruct (syntax->datum #'exp)
> > +                                  (gettext msgid))))
> > +       (datum->syntax #'id new-exp)))))
> 
> For this and other similar macros you must use ‘define-syntax’, not
> ‘define’, so that they are defined at expansion time, not at run time.

As per the above docstring, I already have a definition

  (define-syntax G_ sgettext)

in (apps i18n).  Possibly I should just move it here.



> (It doesn’t make any difference when you’re evaluating code since both
> phases run in the same module, but it does make a difference when these
> phases happen at different times, in different processes.)
> 
> Consequently, you must arrange for ‘sexp->msgid’ and ‘deconstruct’ to be
> available at expansion time too.  This can be done by wrapping their
> definition in ‘eval-when’:
> 
>   (eval-when (load expand eval)
>     (define (sexp->msgid …) …)
>     (define (deconstruct …) …))
> 
> But actually it’s not clear to me why these are macros.  I think they
> could be regular procedures and it’d work just fine, no?
> 

I do not understand.  sexp->msgid and deconstruct are procedures, not
syntax transformers.  I can add eval-when, but the current code runs
as expected for me.




> > +(define %plural-numbers
> > +  ;; Hard-coded list of input numbers such that for each language’s
> > +  ;; plural formula, for each possible output grammatical number,
> > +  ;; there is an n among %plural-numbers that yields this output
> > +  ;; (cf. section Plural forms in the gettext manual), except 1 is
> > +  ;; omitted from this list because it is a special case for
> > +  ;; sngettext.  That is, calling ngettext with each number from
> > +  ;; %plural-numbers and with 1 in any locale is guaranteed to return
> > +  ;; each plural form at least once.  It would be more resilient
> > +  ;; towards new languages if instead of hard-coding we computed this
> > +  ;; from the Plural-Forms in the MO file header entry, but that is
> > +  ;; not worth the incurred code complexity.
> > +  '(0 2 3 11 100))
> 
> I don’t understand this: are these the only plural numbers in all
> languages, or…?
> 

Yes, in all languages for which a plural= formula is documented in the
gettext manual.

For example, Arabic has

          Plural-Forms: nplurals=6; \
              plural=n==0 ? 0 : n==1 ? 1 : n==2 ? 2 : n%100>=3 && n%100<=10 ? 3 \
              : n%100>=11 ? 4 : 5;

with input plural numbers 0, 1, 2, 3, 11, 100 mapping to all outputs
0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Maybe I should add this example to the code comment.

Regards,
Florian