Further, as I just thought about the actual process, because every define that exists will be different most likely in each case, a process may need to be considered, to ease the comparison... Right? Remember each define line has a constant, followed by the information for that language. And each language is "different". There might be cases where the english and japanese are the same because of cultural acceptance, but one should assume first that they are not.
So, two ways I see to do this and it depends on the capability of the comparison software. Either the comparison is done with something like a regex expression that ignores the second half of the below:this regex is not written to accomodate that aspect, and would require investigation.Code:define(.*,.*);
Or 2, a backup copy of each file is made, the file is modified to remove the second part of the expression and the comparison made to identify the missing field(s) as identified in the previous post. This would/could be more like this with a search filter of:
Replace with:Code:define((.*), .*);
Then in case there are comments that follow a define, as part of the comparison, ignore the non-functional/minor differences between files...Code:define($1
Then when a difference is found, the original file is reviewed to evaluate why the difference and what the "statement's" intent is to support translation.
A bit tedious, but a first attempt at a process.
Bookmarks