On Wed, 05 Jul 2000, Bill Gribble wrote:
> Richard Wackerbarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > No it is not. That is adding "apples" and "oranges".
>
> No, it isn't. Adding one "apple" to one "orange" is adding apples to
> oranges. Adding 1.01 to 1.001 is adding a number in hundredths to a
> number in thousandths, and there's nothing sacrilegious about it.
>
> I repeat: we need to enforce restrictions on what numbers we allow to
> be used in what ways. I don't think those restrictions belong in the
> library that implements numbers and the various dances that they do.
>
> > There is no reason that we should treat ALL measurements as numbers.
> > You certainly want to treat things that are physically counted, like
> > "Dollars" or "Shares" as a common meta-type because all of the operations
> > on them don't care which units they are. It only matters that they are
> > the same.
>
> That's all I'm talking about. I just include prices in the set of
> objects including money and securities-holdings-amounts that should
> use a common representation.
I disagree. "Prices" are NOT in the same unit space as countable items.
To FORCE them there places unreasonable constraints on the way we represent
and handle them.
As I have said before, the design should not depend upon the representation.
Therefore, please humor me and consider that they are totally different. If,
after specifying ALL the functionality, we find that we can merge them into a
common type, that would affect only the implementation details.
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
