Bug#809623: RFS: telegram-purple/1.2.3-1

[Ben Wiederhake <BenWiederhake@gmx.de>]

> Hi, I happen to be i18nspector upstream.

Wow! What a quick response, thank you :)

> > - i18nspector and Transifex (the service we use for our translation)
> > heavily disagree about how a po-file should look like,
>
> Care to elaborate on how they "heavily disagree"?

I "only" refer to the pluralization form.

> > and how Russion plurals work(?!).
>
> The Russian PO file reads:
>
> Plural-Forms: nplurals=4; plural=(n%10==1 && n%100!=11 ? 0 : n%10>=2 &&
> n%10<=4 && (n%100<12 || n%100>14) ? 1 : n%10==0 || (n%10>=5 && n%10<=9)
> || (n%100>=11 && n%100<=14)? 2 : 3);

This is copied verbatim from the Transifex service. I'm not competent 
enough in Russian to dare touching it. This discussion seems to lead to 
a bug in Transifex itself. I'll contact Transifex about this, linking to 
this discussion.

> Even though I don't speak Russian, I can tell that this Plural-Forms
> can't possibly be correct. Here 4 plural forms are declared, but the
> expression never evaluates to 3.

Since it's just modular arithmetic, one can just parse the formula to 
fill out a 10x10 table as a "proof". I did that, and came to the same 
result as you do, without even looking at your program. (Originally I 
assumed a precedence error / parsing issue / whatever, so I didn't want 
to start reading C code ... sorry.)

For the record, here's my interpretation, with parenthesis added:

((n%10==1 && n%100!=11)
 ? 0
 : ((n%10>=2 && n%10<=4 && (n%100<12 || n%100>14))
    ? 1
    : ((n%10==0 || (n%10>=5 && n%10<=9) || (n%100>=11 && n%100<=14))
       ? 2
       : 3)))

This rule can be written in regex as follows (note that there is an 
implicit "and not any of the above", although it doesn't make a difference):
- "[023456789]1" => "Transifex one"
- "[023456789][234]" => "Transifex few"
- "1.|.[056789]" => "Transifex many"
- else => "Transifex other"

In this form, it's rather easy to verify that "Transifex other" never 
happens. The names of the forms are based on what Transifex calls them.

> I'm too lazy to make a mathematical proof that this the case, so instead
> I wrote a small program that demonstrates it. Please see the attachment.
> Let me know if the program ever stops. :-P

I'm going to recommend http://haroldbot.cloudapp.net/ for this, even 
though it fails with "Something went wrong" for all queries related to 
this. I have no idea why.

> Now, it would be cool if i18nspector explained better what is wrong
> here. [snip]  I hope to implement this in the future.

Sounds awesome! However, I was still able to understand that *something* 
about the expression was fishy, but didn't understand that i18nspector 
is able to detect issues like this. (Doesn't that essentially require a 
SAT-solver?)

([snip] other issues that need no response from my side.)

Regards,
Ben Wiederhake
PS: Juhani Numminen, I haven't ignored your mail, but my response to 
your mail is going to take longer. Sorry, and thanks for your detailed 
feedback!