Buddha Buck writes:
>
> If GnuCash recorded the balances internally as FP numbers, then the
> amounts wouldn't get rounded off. The difference would be small, true,
> but over time could result in the GnuCash computed values differing
> from the "real" values significantly, where a cent may be considered
> "significant".
Ok, you've convinced me of the need to track 'smallest denominational
units', but not why we need to use integers rather than FP numbers.
You can round FP numbers, too. Why couldn't we just round the FP
amounts to the appropriate precision when needed? If you're worried
about the loss of accuracy, you should provide a realistic example
where the precision of 64-bit floating points is insufficient. And if
you're really worried about that kind of accuracy, I think arbitrary
precision would be required. You will lose accuracy in intermediate
calculations doing division and multiplication of the integer&mantissa
structs/classes as well.
> (BTW, is the recurring transaction system going to be able to handle
> transactions like that? That seems like a fairly common type of
> recurring transaction.)
I don't see why it couldn't, I mean, it hasn't been started yet, so
it's all up in the air.
dave
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
