This is the mail archive of the
libc-alpha@sourceware.org
mailing list for the glibc project.
Re: [PATCH] en_CA, es_AR, es_ES: Define yesstr and nostr.
- From: Petr Baudis <pasky at ucw dot cz>
- To: Carlos O'Donell <carlos at redhat dot com>
- Cc: libc-locales at sourceware dot org, GNU C Library <libc-alpha at sourceware dot org>
- Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 23:02:06 +0200
- Subject: Re: [PATCH] en_CA, es_AR, es_ES: Define yesstr and nostr.
- References: <51619965 dot 9030600 at redhat dot com>
Hi!
On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 12:05:57PM -0400, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> My feeling is that this is positive progress on missing data.
>
> Comments?
I think it's fine, Acked-by: Petr Baudis <pasky@ucw.cz>.
Thank you for the verbose comments. :-)
(Though I'm not particularly fond of having the ASCII contents of the
datapoint sequence repeated in the comment, as all data duplication adds
a potential for inconsistencies. Ideally, we would just actually write
the characters right in the values instead of the codepoints; I didn't
find any technical reason why to insist on the <U...> syntax for all
characters. But then again, I'm personally unlikely to gather the
momentum to do such a change, mainly to verify that it really is 100%
safe.)
> diff --git a/localedata/locales/es_AR b/localedata/locales/es_AR
> index c757638..27636e7 100644
> --- a/localedata/locales/es_AR
> +++ b/localedata/locales/es_AR
> @@ -56,8 +56,7 @@ copy "es_ES"
> END LC_CTYPE
>
> LC_MESSAGES
> -yesexpr "<U005E><U005B><U0073><U0053><U0079><U0059><U005D><U002E><U002A>"
> -noexpr "<U005E><U005B><U006E><U004E><U005D><U002E><U002A>"
> +copy "es_ES"
> END LC_MESSAGES
>
> LC_MONETARY
It seems that es_US also has a local copy. Any reason why not to add
the copy statement there too?
--
Petr "Pasky" Baudis
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear,
simple, and wrong. -- H. L. Mencken