From: bill_kempf (williamkempf_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-31 13:54:11
--- In boost_at_y..., Darin Adler <darin_at_b...> wrote:
> On 1/31/02 9:53 AM, "bill_kempf" <williamkempf_at_h...> wrote:
> > I've never encountered a situation where a translator would need
> > any formatting information, and so including it in the string
> > translator's job more difficult.
> OK that makes sense.
> I would strive for a design where formatting that might need
> goes into the string. It seems nice to be able to keep other
> details that will not need localization out of the string.
> I guess you're just saying that the change that formatting will need
> localization is close to zero.
At least in my experience. I'm not steadfast against including
syntax to allow it in the string, but I doubt I'd ever use it and
think it's important that the design not require it. In other words,
like I said before (though maybe was clear), I think including printf
type specifiers is a huge mistake, and including other formatting
specifications should be considered carefully. In most cases the
only thing I find missing is positional parameters. Otherwise
iostreams outshine printf and all it's warts in every possible way
(well, performance is another issue, but hopefully implementers will
find a way to fix this as well).
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk