Re: [Bashburn-info] Gettext support

[Markus K. <mar...@on...>]

Steven W. Orr wrote:
> On Wednesday, Sep 10th 2008 at 15:39 -0000, quoth Markus Kollmar:
>
> =>Hm, I have just began some weeks before to check/playing and learning to 
> =>do gettext for bashburn.
> =>I stoped the work, because I thought it is a great thing,  but one must 
> =>have support for gettext in the lib's of the system.
> =>And I was not shure whether it would be worth for us to do - I thought 
> =>at first the priority to improve bashburn functionality would be more 
> =>interesting for the most.
> =>
> =>But I see now the discussion here, which is interesting. What do the 
> =>others think? Should we rely that a bashburn user has/need i18n 
> =>(internationalization) support?
> =>
> =>If the most agree to use gettext, i can start working and experimenting 
> =>and to find out a strategy we can best implement gettext in bashburn, if 
> =>it is wished.
>
> I took a look at how this might look.
>
> A po file is a single language mapping file.  So you need multiple po 
> files, one file per language.  Then using gettext() you can translate from 
> English to whatever foreign language you want based on the setlocale() 
> language setting. (This means that BBLANG would just go away.)
>
> Note that the po files are generated from (I think) the pot files. IOW, 
> the pot files are src code and the po files are the result of a Makefile.
>
> So in your bashcode you might have something like:
>
>   printf $(gettext "Hello, %s, you have %d messages waiting.\n" \
> 	name msgs)
>
> and then your po file would contain the mapping of this string to the
> language specific translations.  For example es.po would contain:
>
> #: ../src/foo.c:244
> msgid "Hello, %s, you have %d messages waiting.\n"
> msgstr "Hola %s, usted tiene esperar de %d mensajes.\n"
>
> Your question about lib support is a non-issue. Literally every system has 
> all of the support needed. The part that I'm not yet comfortable with is 
> the idea of whether this is of value in a shell script since these 
> utilities were designed originally for C code. My feeling is that this is 
> not a problem, but since I've never been wrong before, it's bound to 
> happen sometime. ;-)
>
> Markus, since you've actually looked at this before, can you take a stab 
> at implementing a HelloWorld.sh?
>
>   
Ok, I will try.
Please wait.

Markus