Re: the neverending rational vs. integer (they're really the same) saga

2000-08-02 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Wed, 02 Aug 2000, Jason Rennie wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > gnc_numeric gnc_numeric_add(gnc_numeric a, gnc_numeric b, > > gint64 denom, gnc_numeric_round_t how); > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > The problem is that the calls to do simple things like "add"

Re: the neverending rational vs. integer (they're really the same) saga

2000-08-02 Thread Jason Rennie
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > You will probably not need any 'if' statements because you KNOW that > the numbers came from the same source and must, therefore, be in the > same currency. It's easy to pick at someone else's proposal when you yourself don't have an explicit proposal. Every time I

Re: the neverending rational vs. integer (they're really the same) saga

2000-08-01 Thread Richard Wackerbarth
On Tue, 01 Aug 2000, Jason Rennie wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > > Most book keeping is done within a currency and this will be > > dramatically faster. > > Nope. Using the integer representation, you'll need one `if' statement > to determine that you're dealing with two numbers of the same

the neverending rational vs. integer (they're really the same) saga

2000-08-01 Thread Jason Rennie
I'm reading through some of your old e-mails. Thought I'd make some comments... [EMAIL PROTECTED] said: > The only case I could forsee this would be if one could buy 1/3 of something > or if prices were quoted as 1/3 of a dollar (or other currency unit). So, one use for using rationals would