This is the mail archive of the
gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
mailing list for the GCC project.
Re: [C PATCH]: tidy some code
- From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr at integrable-solutions dot net>
- To: "Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28 at cam dot ac dot uk>
- Cc: Nathan Sidwell <nathan at codesourcery dot com>, <gcc-patches at gcc dot gnu dot org>, <bonzini at gnu dot org>
- Date: 27 Nov 2002 11:37:05 +0100
- Subject: Re: [C PATCH]: tidy some code
- Organization: Integrable Solutions
- References: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0211270858570.18616-100000@kern.srcf.societies.cam.ac.uk>
"Joseph S. Myers" <jsm28@cam.ac.uk> writes:
| > That, I think, is bogus:
| >
| > 1) here 'union' and 'struct' are not used as natural words; they are
| > *keywords*
| >
| > 3) There is no point in translating *keyword*
|
| The point was that some other part of the sentence may need to change to
| agree with the gender of 'struct foo' / 'union foo' / 'enum foo', not that
| the keyword is translated. You are saying that such agreement is never
| necessary in Italian for these GCC diagnostics?
I'm saying that
struct T
is not
la structure T
nor
nukpekpe T vi
nor
...
It is the *type-id* 'struct T'. No translation.
| Has this been discussed
| with the relevant Translation Project list doing Italian translations?
I don't know, but the code is clealy wrong as it is 'struct T' is
naming a *type-id*.
| > 2) what about 'class'?
|
| Irrelevant in the C compiler.
But the issue is broader that just for the C front-end!
-- Gaby