[patch] Improve the selection window

[Casiope]

The selection window can be improved very easily.

Nodes, ways and relations should use the singular and plural forms.
They should be hidden when they are not selected.

I made a very bad patch (I have any skill in Java) only to show what change is intended. So I need some help. :)

Thank you very much.

[simon04]

Replying to Casiope:

I made a very bad patch (I have any skill in Java) only to show what change is intended. So I need some help. :)

You can/should use trn() instead of tr() to handle singular/plural forms correctly.

To hide 0 nodes/ways/relations, you could try to construct the String iteratively:

• start with tr("Selection: ")
• add "{0} nodes" if the number of nodes is >0 (make use of trn() here)
• similar for ways and relations

Think of something to insert the separators (/).

[Casiope]

As I said, I have no skill in Java. This patch is the best I can do. :)

[simon04]

Replying to Casiope:

As I said, I have no skill in Java. This patch is the best I can do. :)

I tried to give you some hints how to implement it. Just for the case that you would like to improve your skills. :-)

I attached a reworked patch (attachment:6777.v2.patch​). Unfortunately, the text overflows when a lot of stuff is selected (cf. attachment:overflow.png​).

[bastiK]

To prevent long text, "Relation" can be abbreviated (like it is done at the moment).

[simon04]

What about "1 Rel., 97 Ways, 708 Nodes selected" (see attachment:6777.v3.patch​). This moves "selected" to the end, so a overflow first hides the obvious part …

[stoecker]

You all only look at English strings. The current form is one string, which can be properly translated and fixed in multiple languages. The joined texts are much harder to translate and all assumptions about word lengths are invalid for any other language.

[simon04]

Without separating the primitive types, singular/plural text won't work, right?

I wonder how to get everything right for this ticket. In general, it is quite a long discussion for this trivial issue, isn't it? ;-)

[bastiK]

What about 8 translatable strings for every combination?

[stoecker]

Replying to bastiK:

What about 8 translatable strings for every combination?

Wont work. There are languages which have up to 6 plural forms.

[bastiK]

Replying to stoecker:

Replying to bastiK:

What about 8 translatable strings for every combination?

Wont work. There are languages which have up to 6 plural forms.

Ouch, this doesn't seem to be trivial at all.