Comments for Diego Búrigo Zacarão's Weblog http://diegobz.net Let me talk about something Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:10:50 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 Comment on Generic Python Decorators by Karess http://diegobz.net/2011/08/01/generic-python-decorators/comment-page-1/#comment-2284 Karess Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:10:50 +0000 http://diegobz.net/?p=405#comment-2284 Grazi for miankg it nice and EZ. Grazi for miankg it nice and EZ.

]]> Comment on Dear (Slovenian) Translator by Mojca http://diegobz.net/2011/02/17/dear-slovenian-translator/comment-page-1/#comment-2278 Mojca Sun, 27 Feb 2011 14:10:40 +0000 http://diegobz.net/?p=370#comment-2278 The main reason is that there is some extreme beauty in the system. Not just for one [1] and two [2], but also for zero [0] (which belongs to "other" according to your system) and three [3] (3,4=few): msgstr[0] → zero apples (=other) msgstr[1] → one apple msgstr[2] → two apples msgstr[3] → three apples as opposed to msgstr[0] → one apple msgstr[1] → two apples msgstr[2] → three apples msgstr[3] → zero apples which hardly makes sense. This leads to less errors during translation, it is much easier to remember, works almost everywhere and many teams go into the direction of this convention (some have just finished conversion and don't want to go back). Would this still be a problem for Django if all teams would stick to the more logical convention? Or rather: is it a problem just because it breaks your numbering system or is it a problem just because it is not consistent accross different teams? The main reason is that there is some extreme beauty in the system. Not just for one [1] and two [2], but also for zero [0] (which belongs to “other” according to your system) and three [3] (3,4=few):
msgstr[0] → zero apples (=other)
msgstr[1] → one apple
msgstr[2] → two apples
msgstr[3] → three apples
as opposed to
msgstr[0] → one apple
msgstr[1] → two apples
msgstr[2] → three apples
msgstr[3] → zero apples
which hardly makes sense.

This leads to less errors during translation, it is much easier to remember, works almost everywhere and many teams go into the direction of this convention (some have just finished conversion and don’t want to go back).

Would this still be a problem for Django if all teams would stick to the more logical convention? Or rather: is it a problem just because it breaks your numbering system or is it a problem just because it is not consistent accross different teams?

]]> Comment on Dear (Slovenian) Translator by Bernard http://diegobz.net/2011/02/17/dear-slovenian-translator/comment-page-1/#comment-2272 Bernard Thu, 24 Feb 2011 15:22:33 +0000 http://diegobz.net/?p=370#comment-2272 There are two reasons: 1. "zero rule" = "other rule" 2. synchronized msgstr index This gives us: msgstr[0] → zero and other msgstr[1] → one msgstr[2] → two msgstr[3] → few There are two reasons:
1. “zero rule” = “other rule”
2. synchronized msgstr index
This gives us:
msgstr[0] → zero and other
msgstr[1] → one
msgstr[2] → two
msgstr[3] → few

]]> Comment on Dear (Slovenian) Translator by jype http://diegobz.net/2011/02/17/dear-slovenian-translator/comment-page-1/#comment-2263 jype Tue, 22 Feb 2011 22:18:07 +0000 http://diegobz.net/?p=370#comment-2263 It's because of the language, nothing else. Being a native speaker, the switched rules make a lot of sense, but I have to agree this carries very little weight compared to consistency and I think you shouldn't change it because of this habit. It’s because of the language, nothing else. Being a native speaker, the switched rules make a lot of sense, but I have to agree this carries very little weight compared to consistency and I think you shouldn’t change it because of this habit.

]]> Comment on Dear (Slovenian) Translator by Ales Justin http://diegobz.net/2011/02/17/dear-slovenian-translator/comment-page-1/#comment-2261 Ales Justin Fri, 18 Feb 2011 15:49:50 +0000 http://diegobz.net/?p=370#comment-2261 Not to be biased (aka being from Slovenia as well), I like the new model better. It makes direct sense when mapping number against msg index. Where 0 is default, where even "none" can be applied. I also think this is purely technical decision, language itself is not relevant. e.g. same decision could be made by Chinese ;-) HTH Not to be biased (aka being from Slovenia as well), I like the new model better.
It makes direct sense when mapping number against msg index.
Where 0 is default, where even “none” can be applied.

I also think this is purely technical decision, language itself is not relevant.
e.g. same decision could be made by Chinese ;-)

HTH

]]>