Zitat von Phil Longstaff <[email protected]>:
On Wed, 2011-01-12 at 15:40 -0500, Christian Stimming wrote:
Author: cstim
Date: 2011-01-12 15:40:51 -0500 (Wed, 12 Jan 2011)
New Revision: 20081
Trac: http://svn.gnucash.org/trac/changeset/20081
Modified:
gnucash/trunk/src/engine/gncInvoice.c
gnucash/trunk/src/engine/gncInvoice.h
Log:
Add function for creating a new copy of an existing GncInvoice.
In some places we have gncXxxCopy() and in some, gncXxxClone(). I don't
really care which, but we should standardize.
Even worse, the semantics of those functions are also vastly
different: Some of the *Clone functions are intended to create a
duplicate of the source object but in a different QofBook, including
setting kvp values with the GUID of the old in the new object and vice
versa, i.e. gncCloneInvoice(). Not quite what I would call a "clone".
OTOH xaccTransClone() and xaccSplitClone() are "normal" deep copy
constructors, but xaccCloneAccount() is not, and
xaccCloneAccountSimple() also is not. Gee.
In my case, the use case for the function is a button "Duplicate this
invoice", so the invoice and all its content should be duplicated
inside the same QofBook and will subsequently be edited so that it can
be distinguished from the original invoice. This requires a normal
copy constructor (deep copy).
If the normal constructor function is called gncFooCreate, a standard
copy constructor should be called gncFooCopy. All other non-standard
functions should be named significantly different, like
gncFooCopyIntoDifferentBook (maybe not) or gncFooOtherBookCopy (that's
a serious proposal).
Christian
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
