Re: [PATCH v11 1/5] Implement alternative month names (bug 10871).

["Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3405 bytes --]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 12:46:06PM +0100, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> 11.01.2018 03:16 "Dmitry V. Levin" <ldv@altlinux.org> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 09, 2018 at 12:59:21AM +0100, Rafal Luzynski wrote:
> > > [BZ #10871]
> > > * locale/C-time.c: Add alternative month names, define them as the
> > > same as mon explicitly.
> >
> > * locale/C-time.c (_nl_C_LC_TIME): Add alternative month names.
> >
> > I don't understand what do you mean by "define them as the same as mon
> > explicitly", though.
> 
> Initially I had an idea to add the alternative month names but
> initialize them all to empty strings ("") and rely on the mechanism
> which falls back to the regular month names if the alternative ones
> are empty.  Then this has been changed to initialize them just "January",
> "February", etc.  How to name those month names?  Regular?  Nominative?
> Basic?  Non-alternative?

Whatever you like, I'd just use "month names":

* locale/C-time.c (_nl_C_LC_TIME): Update nstrings.  Add alternative month
names defined to the same string values as month names.

> > [...]
> > > * locale/programs/ld-time.c: Alternative month names support
> > > added, they are a copy of mon if not specified explicitly.
> >
> > * locale/programs/ld-time.c (struct locale_time_t): Add alt_mon,
> > walt_mon, and alt_mon_defined members.
> > (time_output): Output alt_mon and walt_mon members.
> > (time_read): Read them, initialize alt_mon_defined.
> 
> This is OK but shouldn't we mention that alt_mon content is copied
> from mon (and walt_mon from wmon) if not specified explicitly in the
> locale data file?

Feel free to mention whatever you consider appropriate,
my comments were mostly about the ChangeLog style.

> > [...]
> > > * time/strptime_l.c: Alternative month names also recognized.
> >
> > * time/strptime_l.c (alt_month_name): New macro.
> > (__strptime_internal) [_LIBC]: Add ... (whatever is being added).
> > Handle %OB format.
> 
> I'm confused.  Actually alt_month_name has been added globally
> in the #ifdef _LIBC section so I think this makes sense:
> 
> * time/strptime_l.c [_LIBC] (alt_month_name): New macro.

Sure, you must know better, I cannot tell by looking at the patch.

> But I don't understand what do you mean by "(__strptime_internal)
> [_LIBC]: Add ... (whatever is being added)."  It's "Handle %OB format"
> what has been added.  And it's not really conditional [_LIBC]; the
> difference is that if _LIBC is not defined then %OB format is accepted
> but alternative month names are not checked (because alt_month_name does
> not exist).  Is this a copy-paste typo?  What else do I miss?

If it's not conditional, than [_LIBC] is not needed.

> > [...]
> > > --- a/locale/langinfo.h
> > > +++ b/locale/langinfo.h
> > > @@ -100,7 +100,8 @@ enum
> > > ABMON_12,
> > > #define ABMON_12 ABMON_12
> > >
> > > - /* Long month names. */
> > > + /* Long month names, in the grammatical form used when the month
> > > + forms part of a complete date. */
> >
> > ... when month name is a part of ...?
> 
> Does the question mark mean that you are not sure?  Well, this comment
> has been provided by Zack Weinberg who is a native English speaker.

I read this as "month is a part of a part of a complete date" which
is too complex unless your intention is to highlight that month name
is a subpart.


-- 
ldv

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 801 bytes --]