Hi Neil,
Neil Williams schrieb:
In this fin.c
case, I don't understand why a different solution isn't possible --
Because unless the return value is set to the error state, the recursive loop
becomes infinite.
Hopefully, using g_return_val_if_fail will make it clear that returning 0.0
from functions that calculate interest rates indicates a failure.
Well, the code clearly is much better now, because you don't use any
casts on the return value anymore.
However, I think you got the condition in g_return_val_if_fail() the
wrong way --
@@ -1246,5 +1247,5 @@
/* if eint == 0.0, all processing _must_ stop or
a recursive loop will start. */
- if (eint == 0.0) { return 0.0; }
+ g_return_val_if_fail(eint == 0.0, 0.0);
return (1.0 + eint * (double) beg) / eint;
should probably rather be
g_return_val_if_fail(eint != 0.0, 0.0);
because the function is terminated if the expression is not true. And in
any case, I thought that at least in the function _B() you could as well
write
g_assert(eint != 0.0);
which would terminate the program here, but that's okay because the
parameter eint is now checked *before* calling _B(), so this assertion
should always be true in the current code. In _C() the call
g_return_val_if_fail() might be the sufficient solution as long as the
calling parameter cannot be checked in all calls of _C().
Are you sure that g_assert()
http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.0/glib/glib-Warnings-and-Assertions.html#g-assert
didn't terminate the program immediately if the assertion failed? It
should; otherwise something might be wrong in your compiler setup.
Anyway, the important part was that the check for a nonzero denominator
is now done before calling _B(), and that's surely the better way to
check this. Thanks for fixing this.
Christian
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
