Gunter Labes
Gunter Labes
I don't really understand what the confusion is. The issue is that to this day the plural forms specifications in our po files are inconsistent. Even when just considering the...
We do know the language? No idea why you assume some kind of blind change. It's clear to see right now in the current po files that the specifications are...
As mentioned earlier the specifications are not consistent. One po file has one specification and another a different one or none at all. For example: po/wesnoth/grc.po: "Plural-Forms: nplurals=3; plural=n==1 ?...
> And I'm saying not being consistent is perfectly fine. Disagreed.
Case 2 certainly sounds like a bug. Case 3 doesn't make a lot of sense but I guess could be supported anyway to work only with random selection.
I think it would help if you partition your post in at least two sections: 1. Summary of the current state 2. Your improvement suggestions based on the current state...
A simple test case does not overwrite for me: ``` [event] name=moveto [move_unit] x,y=$unit.x,$unit.y to_x,to_y=1,1 [/move_unit] [/event] ``` If there is a unit at 1,1 it is not overwritten.
IMO honestly best would be to revert 204357c. It added complexity for questionable gain. `[side_filter]` for example ignores `controller` still.
It was also marked as a regression when it wasn't one.
> I don't think it's a good idea to change it back to being unsafe to use - rather than making this even more complicated, it should just not allow...