On 06 Jul 2000 09:10:23 EST, the world broke into rejoicing as
Bill Gribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> Richard Wackerbarth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > I agree that rather than describing the properties of a currency for the
> > "denominator" of an amount, we should simply reference the currency. The
> > properties of it are common to all instances of amounts denominated in that
> > currency. Further, that reference can be "factored" and we can simply store
> > the numerator of each entry.
>
> Storing the two halves that make a value in completely different
> layers of representation is wrong, IMO. If a "monetary value" is a
> single concept, it should be stored as a single entity. To do
> otherwise is just to ask for headache after headache.
Ah, but storing the denominator, which is identical for all USD
transactions, in each transaction, breaks normalization rules.
So this more or less begs the question:
Which headache do you want?
I'd rather go with the headache that diminishes storage requirements and
likely increases speed, rather than one that requires that I replicate
data, and gives the opportunity to replicate it _WRONG_.
--
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - <http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/linux.html>
Spontaneous Order
"The Austrian Economists discovered that control and chaos were
actually on the same side, and that neither is a viable way to get
smart."
-- Mark Miller
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
