Get closer to full CLDR pluralization support #634
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Adds explicit 0/1 keys and basic lateral inheritance.
movermeyer
force-pushed
the
movermeyer/explicit_0_1_and_lateral_inheritance
branch
from
6290cbb
to
c78ca61
Compare
|
cc @radar this is ready for review |
radar
approved these changes
Feb 3, 2023
|
This looks good to me. Thanks @movermeyer! |
|
Hey @radar, whenever you get some time, could we get a new release of I'm eagerly awaiting the time when I can start using these features. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What are you trying to accomplish?
A step towards CLDR pluralization. Ref: #629
Previously, I put forth a PR, that was reverted in #633 since dropping [incorrect] support for
zerokey is a breaking change.This PR is the same as #630 (adding support for explicit 0/1 keys and basic lateral inheritance), but maintains the existing [incorrect]
zerokey behaviour.What approach did you choose and why?
I brought back the changes from my first attempt, but also brought back the [incorrect]
zerokey behaviour:otherplural categorySome progress towards CLDR compatibility is better than none. Removal of the
zerokey behaviour will be done in a separate PR.Q&A
Q: Are
0&1the only special cases, or can one introduce others? Perhaps2: I have a pair of carsA: It might be allowed, depending on how you read the spec... but the spec only mentions
0and1, the LDML DTD only considers0and1to be valid, and CLDR has only ever used0and1. I left support for arbitrary numbers out of this PR, as I figure that it would be better to be restrictive with what we accept right now. It's an easy change to accept other values if it turns out to be desirable.The impact of these changes
Pluralization lookups will will support CLDR's data.
Ref: #629 for details of why these changes are important.