On Sun, Aug 9, 2020 at 1:19 AM Martin Blais <bl...@furius.ca> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 6, 2020 at 4:24 PM Chary Chary <chary...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Are you also planning to define beancount "API" more clearly and safely? > > > Roughly speaking the same data model and similar access to data > structures, special containers, and functions, via Python. > > We touched upon the subject in this discussion: >> https://groups.google.com/g/beancount/c/UatQey1X0OY/m/0FGCrY5fAwAJ >> >> Would it not be logical, that by using defined API (I think you called it >> "a contract") user is not able to "break" something, the API would simply >> not allow this to happen? >> > > This is a new major revision, I do want the freedom to evolve things and > make them better, at least a bit. > It won't be perfectly the same as before, but it'll be very close, at > least conceptually. > > > I know this may be a naive question (as I am not professional), but why >> doesn't beancount use object-oriented approach? So you have an object, >> representing all transactions, and user can manipulate them (add / delete) >> through methods, but implementation of the class does not allow unsafe >> changes / operations? >> > > That's a much longer discussion to have an out of scope for this forum, > [...]
Actually, never mind this long-winded answer. The short answer is that the "API" is mostly just the data Beancount produces + a few simple library functions and a container object (the Inventory). There's no point in hiding the full set of directives behind an API, it would be like replicating all the data model. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to beancount+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhONrMpSW%2Bb%2BfLJH0fRE6ZvC1JDApbL4zJaD2Eevn4Erjg%40mail.gmail.com.
