[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | John Prevost <visigoth@c...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] printf and scanf |
>>>>> "jm" == Jérôme Marant <jerome.marant@free.fr> writes:
>> Even if you want to do things at runtime, you can compile the
>> default string at compile-time, and then you know the type to
>> expect.
jm> This is true with the current implementation of printf in
jm> the Printf module. But this would be wrong if you consider
jm> parameter reordering in the C printf (the printf manual page
jm> gives enough good explainations).
jm> I've been giving the following example for quite long now:
jm> languages do not always order words the same way. So,
jm> sometimes, you need to reorder parameters in translated
jm> strings in order to get a correct syntax in the targeted
jm> language. With printf, you can do it this way:
jm> fr: " %s %d"
jm> string -> int
jm> de: " %2$s %1$d"
jm> int -> string
jm> This example shows that if you want a full featured
jm> internationalisation, you cannot state that "you know the type
jm> you expect" since you will only determine it at run-time.
Actually, this is not a counter-example, it's just a place where the
current O'Caml format typing rules are insufficient. In this case,
there's a simple reason the two types are different: the formats are
incompatible. What you want is:
fr: " %d %s"
de: " %2$s %1$d"
in your model, which produces two formats of type int -> string which
can be interchanged. If you only "know the type at runtime", it means
you have a type error.
Just to add to things: if you use a module as a message catalog with
combinator formats, argument re-ordering is based on a wrapper
function:
let fr k s = (lit " " $$ int $$ lit " " $$ str) k s
let de k s a b = (lit " " $$ str $$ lit " " $$ int) k s a b
(One of course should do something to make this at least a little
cleaner, though. Including one argument to defeat the polymorphism
restriction is one thing, but putting two arguments in is more of a
pain.)
John.
-------------------
To unsubscribe, mail caml-list-request@inria.fr Archives: http://caml.inria.fr
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs FAQ: http://caml.inria.fr/FAQ/
Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners