Just replying to one point here...
> (note: my use of the word "commodity" as a more
> generic term than "currency" or "stocks" or "inventory" seeks to be
> more inclusive than any of them), I see no problem in keeping
> some of the
> "factors" in places that will need to be accessed separately from each
> "value." We're guaranteed a whole lot of indirection; we
> might as well
> use that to minimize the amount of data that needs to be replicated.
While I can deal with "commodity" as being a more generic term than
"currency" or "stocks", I am concerned about "commodities" that differ by
simple scaling factors.
Are "1/100 Dollars" and "1/64 Dollars" considered the same "commodity" or
different "commodities"? Should they be comparable? Should they use the
same dispatched printing routine?
On the one hand, we are dealing with "dollars" and "dollars" here, not
"apples" and "oranges". That we are using different granulations doesn't
change that.
On the other hand, we are dealing with "cents" and "sixtyfourths", which
-are- "apples" and "oranges" (or one could make a case for "McIntosh" and
"Granny Smith", I suppose).
Or, going into the world of stocks, are "lots of XYZ Corp" different
"commodities" than "shares of XYZ Corp"?
> --
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
> "What a depressingly stupid machine." -- Marvin
>
> --
> Gnucash Developer's List
> To unsubscribe send empty email to:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
