Re: .paid field vs .payment field

Newsgroups	comp.programming
Date	2018-09-22 08:53 -0700
References	<po0slo$eqg$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Message-ID	<9c991b08-2215-4fbf-bbdf-a596e4b38fb3@googlegroups.com> (permalink)
Subject	Re: .paid field vs .payment field
From	Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name>

Show all headers | View raw

On Thursday, 20 September 2018 21:33:18 UTC+2, Victor Porton  wrote:

> Now, my question: Should I also have boolean field SimpleItem.paid? It seems 
> that I can determine whether there was a payment by checking that .payment 
> is non-NULL. So it seems that .paid field is not necessary. But maybe there 
> are arguments for the contrary?

No "magic values"...  The canonical good solution for such cases is have an
(enumerable) purchase-state field.

HTH,

Julio

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

.paid field vs .payment field Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2018-09-20 22:33 +0300
  Re: .paid field vs .payment field Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2018-09-22 16:40 +0300
  Re: .paid field vs .payment field Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-22 07:11 -0700
    Re: .paid field vs .payment field Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2018-09-22 17:17 +0300
      Re: .paid field vs .payment field Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-25 01:21 -0700
        Re: .paid field vs .payment field Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru> - 2018-09-25 18:59 +0300
          Re: .paid field vs .payment field Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-25 09:43 -0700
  Re: .paid field vs .payment field Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2018-09-22 08:53 -0700

csiph-web