From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gcc-patches-return-252819-listarch-gcc-patches=gcc.gnu.org@gcc.gnu.org>
Received: (qmail 15528 invoked by alias); 18 Nov 2009 09:23:27 -0000
Received: (qmail 15519 invoked by uid 22791); 18 Nov 2009 09:23:26 -0000
X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.8 required=5.0 	tests=AWL,BAYES_00,SARE_MSGID_LONG40,SPF_PASS
X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org
Received: from mail-vw0-f181.google.com (HELO mail-vw0-f181.google.com) (209.85.212.181)     by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:22:36 +0000
Received: by vws11 with SMTP id 11so265470vws.0         for <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>; Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:22:35 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.220.89.221 with SMTP id f29mr3813821vcm.1.1258536154849; Wed,  	18 Nov 2009 01:22:34 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911180331400.32327@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
References: <4B025B89.6030500@oracle.com> 	 <206fcf960911171816n1562a8dfl66b33b400def341e@mail.gmail.com> 	 <4B03623C.5030100@gnu.org> 	 <Pine.LNX.4.64.0911180331400.32327@digraph.polyomino.org.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:40:00 -0000
Message-ID: <206fcf960911180122p6495aea2q614cd7899d7c5cd1@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH, PR c++/40892] Fix maybe_warn_cpp0x i18n problems
From: Gabriel Dos Reis <gdr@integrable-solutions.net>
To: "Joseph S. Myers" <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <bonzini@gnu.org>, GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-IsSubscribed: yes
Mailing-List: contact gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <gcc-patches.gcc.gnu.org>
List-Archive: <http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/>
List-Post: <mailto:gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gcc-patches-help@gcc.gnu.org>
Sender: gcc-patches-owner@gcc.gnu.org
X-SW-Source: 2009-11/txt/msg00912.txt.bz2

On Tue, Nov 17, 2009 at 9:34 PM, Joseph S. Myers
<joseph@codesourcery.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>> >> I have made two candidate patches. One is to pass an enum
>> > > to this function and the other is pass the complete diagnostic text to it.
>> > > Which one is ok for trunk?
>> >
>> > The second -- the one with enums.
>>
>> Since you like the enum approach, what would you think of something like
>> http://gcc.gnu.org/ml/gcc-patches/2002-06/msg01620.html ?
>
> I agree with the preference for the enums, but would rather put in full
> sentences for translation instead of using fragments each of which is used
> in multiple places, unless something makes using full sentences
> infeasible.

I agree.

-- Gaby