Marking translatable strings

[Barry A. Warsaw]

    >> 1. It seems to me that the natural extension of the current
    >> string syntax is to allow a prefix 't' in front of strings
    >> intended to be translated.

>>>>> "FP" == ISO  <pinard at iro.umontreal.ca> writes:

    FP> It could be a good idea, yet it represents a change in the
    FP> language, which I think could easily be avoided.

I agree.  I'm especially worried about the proliferation of string
prefixes we already have: u and r, and some folks have proposed $
strings.  The addition of t-strings just seems like going overboard to
me.  Plus, there's no way this is going into 2.0 and I won't speculate
on Guido's opinion of it for subsequent releases.

    >> 3. [...] the best forum for this would be the String SIG.

    FP> If I remember well, I went through the archives, and saw only
    FP> little about these matters.  There were a lot of discussions
    FP> about regexps, however! :-)

I believe the i18n-sig was where a lot of this was discussed
previously.

-Barry