Re: [Po4a-devel]Add an option to tweak po references

Martin Quinson wrote: [...] >I always play with -I^#: but I agree that this may be suboptimal, and with >your point in general. Hmm, what' -I^#?

[...] >>Now, the logical place to implement this is the Po.pm module but it was >>not possible to pass options to it. So I added a -O option which passes >>options to the Po.pm module (via TransTractor,pm) instead of the format >>module. > >I don't really like it. Users shouldn't really care about whether the >option >is for this part of the code or that one. Agreed. > Couldn't we seed the option set of >each modules from the transtractor code or such? I've tried something like this but it failed because Sgml.pm complained it did not know about 'porefs'. Maybe the modules should add the options they recognize to a hash list that they would return to whoever controls things at the top. Then any option missing from the hash would be reported as an error.

>Mixing module options and "general" ones (ie, for Po.pm or so) would also >allow to add this feature to all binaries, not only updatepo. Yes, po4a-gettextize would probably need this option too. [...] >I'll try to give it a spin tomorow. Great!