Re: Translation issues with strftime

Malcolm Tredinnick <> writes:


> It is completely undocumented behaviour for strftime(), though. It
> happens to work, but the strftime(3) page mentions nothing about the
> modifier.

This is not true. GNU projects are not supposed to use man pages,
really. If you look in the info help, it is documented:

     ... by an optional flag which can be one of the following.  These flags
     are all GNU extensions. The first three affect only the output of
          The number is padded with spaces.
          The number is not padded at all.

The reason it is in the Danish translation, is IIRC that some of the
original strings once used the %-d. Of course, if it breaks things, I
have to remove it. Sigh.

> If it is really important that those strings don't have a leading zero
> for locale-specific reasons, shouldn't the original string be %X and %x,
> as appropriate, rather than some tricked out version as is there
> currently?

The leading zero just looks bad. I hate it everytime I see it in the
English version, too. When where the last time you wrote a date with
zero padding?

Unfortunately, %e is a bad solution. I don't need an extra space:

  tir 02. dec
  tir  2. dec

I just want "tir 2. dec".

Could we please fix the software instead? This bug seems to have a

Ole Laursen

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]