Marcus Denker <marcus at ira.uka.de> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2003 at 03:55:42PM -0500, diegogomezdeck at consultar.com wrote:
> > The biggest risk in my eyes is if  Babel get not included in Squeak.  Babel
> > is an almost trivial piece of code but it impacts all over Squeak.
> > Basically each "visible" string has to received the #translated message and,
> > as you can imagine, it means changes all over the image.
> > 
> > The translations are hold in each language instance in a dictionary and we
> > have support for merging dictionaries, etc. so the risk is not at this part.
> > 
> > One time Babel got included in Squeak every package maintainer can make the
> > package "translatable" just sending #translated to the gui's strings.
> > 
> > I'd like to know which type of opportunity (if any) Babel has to be included
> > for 3.7.  What the guides think about? What the other potential translators
> > do?
> > 
> I think we should really add this, and think about better ways to do it
> later. We should think about this as a failing test: It's not green. Just
> fix it and refactor later. 
> 
> I we now decide to not include it "because there may be nicer solutions",
> chance is very high that nothing will happen at all. 

I agree that something should go in for 3.7. And Babel looks simple and
you even have a tool for it - a big plus. :-) I still want us to at
least discuss it a bit because this will touch A LOT OF CODE.

For example, did you ever look at Andreas stuff?:
http://lists.squeakfoundation.org/pipermail/squeak-dev/2001-September/02
8829.html

I would be very interested to hear your opinion on that stuff.

regards, Göran