On Thu, Jan 12, 2017 at 1:08 AM, Junio C Hamano <gits...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Jeff King <p...@peff.net> writes:
>
>> Yes, I would think die_errno() is a no-brainer for translation, since
>> the strerror() will be translated.
>>
>>> apply.c: die(_("internal error"));
>>>
>>> That is funny, too. I think we should substitute that with
>>>
>>> die("BUG: untranslated, but what went wrong instead")
>>
>> Yep. We did not consistently use "BUG:" in the early days. I would say
>> that "BUG" lines do not need to be translated. The point is that nobody
>> should ever see them, so it seems like there is little point in giving
>> extra work to translators.
>
> In addition, "BUG: " is relatively recent introduction to our
> codebase. Perhaps having a separate BUG(<string>) function help the
> distinction further?
I was going to write the same thing. On top of that I wonder if have
enough "if (something) die("BUG:")" to justify stealing BUG_ON() from
kernel (better than assert since the condition will always be
evaluated).
--
Duy
