Neil,
Quoting Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
@@ -1257,7 +1259,9 @@
static double
_C (double eint, double pmt, unsigned beg)
{
- return pmt * _B (eint, beg);
+ unsigned check = _B (eint, beg);
+ if(check) return pmt * check;
+ return 0.0;
} /* _C */
I'm not convinced this patch is correct. _B() returns a double, but
you're assigning it to an unsigned -- so you're going to lose data
in the case. I also don't see why it matters here; there's nothing
illegal about multiplying by zero.
@@ -1431,6 +1434,7 @@
double eint = eff_int (nint / 100.0, CF, PF, disc);
double AA = _A (eint, per);
double BB = _B (eint, bep);
+ if(BB == 0.0) return 0.0;
You're also inconsistent with your checks. Sometimes you say:
if (foo)
and others (like here) you say:
if (foo == 0.0)
Any particular reason for the inconsistency? Could we choose one
for a particular patchset?
return -(fv + pv * (AA + 1.0)) / (AA * BB);
} /* _fi_calc_payment */
@@ -1530,7 +1534,7 @@
double AA = _A (eint, per);
double CC = _C (eint, pmt, bep);
double D = (AA + 1.0) / (1.0 + eint);
-
+ if(CC == 0) return 0.0;
And yet another inconsistency -- == 0 instead of == 0.0.
Are you sure this code even still works? Is there a test case that shows
the actual bug(s)?
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL-IA N1NWH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
