From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <4b34059e61c4f6071f83af2fb750cfe3@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Error reporting (Was: [9fans] GNU Make)
Date: Thu,  3 Jun 2004 11:50:08 +0200
From: lucio@proxima.alt.za
In-Reply-To: <064201c4494b$859c3bc0$9a7e7d50@SOMA>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 927cc6ae-eacd-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

> you could do %r as a cryptographic hash for translation.
> 
> you return the %r chunk and then hash it into an associative array of translated messages, indexed by hash.

Yes, it would simplify the APE translation as well.  And the
associative array of translated messages may as well contain the
English version, anyway.

I think I was missing something: I now understand that numeric error
codes are bound to collide whereas if natural language messages happen
to collide - already a much less likely scenario - chances are
extremely good that it doesn't matter.  In fact, one could declare it
not to matter.

That was one point I did not quite grasp until now.  I think that
Boyd's and forsyth's suggestions should be implemented.  I'll revise
my data processing textbooks and see if I can come up with a
reasonable hashing algorithm and improve APE's message lookup
algorithm.  I have a feeling that it is not going to end there.

++L