I've got a python program under active development, which uses gettext for translation.
I've got a .POT file with translations, but it is slightly out of date. I've got a script to generate an up-to-date .PO file. Is there a way to check how much of the new .PO file is covered by the .POT file?
I've got a .POT file with translations, but it is slightly out of date. I've got a script to generate an up-to-date .PO file
I think you mean the other way around. POT files are generated from your source code with PO files containing the translations.
Is there a way to check how much of the new .PO file is covered by the .POT file?
The Gettext command line msgmerge program can be used for syncing your out-of-date PO files with your latest source strings. To create a new PO file from an updated POT you would issue this command:
msgmerge old.po new.pot > updated.po
The new file will contain all the existing translations that are still valid and add any new source strings. Open it in your favourite PO editor and you should see how many strings now remain untranslated.
Update
As pointed out in the comments, you can see how many strings remain untranslated with the "statistics" option of the msgfmt program (normally used for compiling to .mo) e.g.
msgfmt --statistics updated.po
Or without bothering with the interim file:
msgmerge old.po new.pot | msgfmt --statistics -
This would produce a synopsis like:
123 translated messages, 77 untranslated messages.
Related
When I use scholar.google.com to get the full reference code (BibTeX) such as
#article{li2018design,
title={Design and implementation of building structure monitoring system based on radio frequency identification (RFID)},
author={Li, Hongwei and Ren, Yilei},
journal={International Journal of RF Technologies},
volume={9},
number={1-2},
pages={37--49},
year={2018},
publisher={IOS Press}
}
Then go to the journal template file, I want to copy the reference from scholar.google.com and paste it into the LaTex journal template file without doing any modification.
The template file looks like this:
Unfortunately, the paste in the template file does NOT work.
Here is the error message:
Can you assist of how to do it and make the file work correctly?
The format given by Google scholar has to be used when you compile, in order, with
Latex (or PDFLatex)
Bibtex
Latex (or PDFLatex)
Latex (or PDFLatex)
where you store the entries of your bibliography in a separate file named <mydoc>.bib.
You are simply using \thebibliography environment, which allows you to write \bibitems, which is a simpler approach (even if I suggest to use it when you have a small number of bibliography entries). If you have to use this latter approach, you have to rewrite the reference retrieved in Google scholar in the format needed by your document.
Have a look here: it explains very well the differences.
I'm planning to do a program with Lua that will first of all read specific files
and get information from those files. So my first question is whats the "my documents" path name? I have searched a lot of places, but I'm unable to find anything. My second question is how can I use the first four letters of a file name to see which one is the newest made?
Finding the files in "my documents" then find the newest created file and read it.
The reading part shouldn't be a problem, but navigating to "my documents" and finding the newest created file in a folder.
For your first question, depends how robust you want your script to be. You could use Lua's builtin os.getenv() to get a variety of environment vars related to user, such as USERNAME, USERPROFILE, HOMEDRIVE, HOMEPATH. Example:
username = os.getenv('USERNAME')
dir = 'C:\\users\\' .. username .. '\\Documents'
For the second question, there is no builtin mechanism in Windows to have the file creation or modification timestamp as part of the filename. You could read the creation or modification timestamp, via a C extension you create or using an existing Lua library like lfs. Or you could read the contents of a folder and parse the filenames if they were named according to the pattern you mention. Again there is nothing built into Lua to do this, you would either use os.execute() or lfs or, again, your own C extension module, or combinations of these.
Lets say you have 3 swf files in a directory:
/game/assets/
1.swf
2.swf
3.swf
What I need to do, is package these up into a SWC File, and then move that SWC file to the libs/ directory.
I plan to use ant, so this step must always occur before the compliation stage.
Today I use a VBS file to generate a XML file. Then I use that XML file to generate a AssetMap which is a series of [Embeds] (1.swf, 2.swf, 3.swf) which are ByteArrays.
I then pass these byte arrays to a loader.loabytes to generate a MovieClip.
But this "real time bytearray conversion" as far too slow. Id prefer I could have direct access to instances like I do with a SWC.
Can anyone offer me advice?
We have two .po files, each from different branches of a piece of software.
We need to combine these into a single .po file.
There are duplicates between the two files, and the ideal handling would be for one file's strings to be favoured (consistently).
We have a SUSE system so the --output-file doesn't seem to have the behaviour of ignoring/merging duplicates which the Sun version has according to a man page I found from a web search. (We do not have a Sun machine handy!)
What you are looking for is the msgcat util, it concatenates and merges the specified PO dictionaries.
This is part of gettext utils, for more information please consult gettext manual page on msgcat.
you can use poedit.
To merge your current po-file, you must to open it and click:
Catalog > Update from POT-file.
Set the filter to all files and select your second.po file
Poedit will show you new & obsolete strings
I use msgmerge:
msgmerge [old_file.po] [new_file.po] > output.po
It works for me, but be aware that it does a silly merge, it is, it discards the entries in the old_file (new file items overwrites old one items).
I added a line "\cite{test}" as a test to my working Latex document. When I compiled the bibtex "!bibtex name_of_my_file, I got the expected error:
Warning--I didn't find a database entry for "test"
Then, I removed the line and compiled the bibtex again, hoping to have a working Latex file again. However, the same error occurs, even with a fresh shell. I cannot understand the behaviour. What is the logic? How can I get my Latex document working again?
[Updated Info]
The problem dissapeared as unexpectedly as it emerged. I have no idea why but it works now. Do you know the reason for the odd behaviour?
I think you are tripping over the multi-pass nature of LaTex plus Bibtex. If you look at Step 3 in this discussion, you'll see the following:
The first run (through latex)
generates an auxiliary file,
paper.aux, containing information
about citations (and other types of
references), the bibliography style
used, and the name of the bibtex
database. The second run (through
bibtex) uses the information in the
auxiliary file, along with the data
contained in the bibtex database, to
create a file paper.bbl. This file
contains a thebibliography environment
with \bibitem entries formatted
according to the bibliography style
specified.
So, what I think is happening is that your name_of_my_file.aux file still contains your placeholder \cite{test}. If you remove the auxiliary file, you should be able to start over with:
latex name_of_my_file
bibtex name_of_my_file
latex name_of_my_file
latex name_of_my_file
[Update based on additional info]: The problem was that you had a .aux file with your \cite{} still embedded. The second time that you ran latex, you overrode the old file with the new. That's why the complete set of steps includes an initial latex call, a bibtex call and two follow-up latex calls. Think of it as a multi-pass compiler and it might be more intuitive.
You could have a look at latexmk, which will take care of the fix point compilation for you.
Anyway, you should be able to build the document (pdflatex blah.tex), even if you're missing a bibliography item. The corresponding references will just appear as question marks in the PDF.
Rerun latex to regenerate the aux file.
Have a look at this discussion for pointers to a bit more information. Basically, you may have taken your citation out of the .tex file, but it still exists in one of the derived files (aux, bbl, whatever...)
Check if your bib file has the extension .bib and not .tex.
If it is .tex, just change it to .bib and that should do it.
Once I changed it accidentally to tex, by adding some references, and saving it with the "save as" option, without specifying the bib extension. That's how it can happen all of a sudden.
delete all your .aux and temporal files, re run with latex and then bibtex and then latex twice.