From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:39150) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iduYp-0003IE-BY for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 06:17:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iduYm-00041J-8i for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 06:17:10 -0500 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:44594) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iduYg-0003xt-2R for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 06:17:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1iduYf-0007Yk-Uc for guix-patches@gnu.org; Sun, 08 Dec 2019 06:17:01 -0500 Subject: [bug#38460] [PATCH 1/1] lint: Add '--load-path' option. Resent-Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20191202204759.28329-1-zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> <20191202210127.28466-1-zimon.toutoune@gmail.com> <87blsoc8yv.fsf@gnu.org> <87pngzsq9w.fsf@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <87pngzsq9w.fsf@gnu.org> From: zimoun Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2019 12:15:48 +0100 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: Ludovic =?UTF-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?= Cc: 38460@debbugs.gnu.org Hi Ludo, On Sat, 7 Dec 2019 at 23:51, Ludovic Court=C3=A8s wrote: > Well, technically speaking it=E2=80=99s not copy/pasted since the code yo= u sent > uses =E2=80=98find=E2=80=99 to grab the option; plus, we=E2=80=99re talki= ng about very few > lines, which is typically hard to factorize. I agree. Even if I do not have a better solution to propose, I just feel the current one is not optimal. Does the same gettext entries G_ are duplicated? Do translators translate 2 times (or more) the same string? > So I sympathize with the bad feeling of repetition, but I=E2=80=99m not q= uite > sure how this can be avoided in this case. > > WDYT? Thank you for the explanations. I am not sure neither and need to fail by myself to be convinced. ;-) And currently, any hypothetical break should be reported by the test suite. Hope so. All the best, simon