Re: [PATCH] PRItime: wrap PRItime for better l10n compatibility

[Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>]

Jiang Xin <worldhello.net@gmail.com> writes:

>> Two potential issues are:
>>
>>  - After this patch, there still are quite a many
>>
>>         printf("time is %"PRItime" ...\n", timestamp)
>>
>>    so the burden on the programmers having to remember when it is
>>    required to use format_raw_time() becomes unclear, and makes the
>>    change/churn larger when an existing message needs to be marked
>>    for translation.
>>
>>  - The static struct strbuf here is a cheap way to avoid leaks, but
>>    at the same time it is unfriendly to threaded code.  We could
>>    instead do:
>>
>>         void append_PRItime(struct strbuf *buf, timestamp_t time);
>>
>>    to fix that trivially, but the damage to the caller obviously is
>>    much larger going this way.
>>
>
> I wonder if we can replace the original %lu for timestamp with PRIuMAX
> instead.  PRIuMAX works fine with gettext utils.

I think the question can better be answered if we know how gettext
tools special case PRIuMAX.  One thing that may be problematic is
that timestamp can later become a signed type and use of one level
of redirection in the current code via PRItime and via timestamp_t
is a good way to keep such a transition much easier.  Reverting it
to use PRIuMAX would make such a transition much harder.