.paid field vs .payment field

From	Victor Porton <porton@narod.ru>
Newsgroups	comp.programming
Subject	.paid field vs .payment field
Date	2018-09-20 22:33 +0300
Organization	Aioe.org NNTP Server
Message-ID	<po0slo$eqg$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink)

Show all headers | View raw

Let us narrow the task:

I am writing a class SimpleItem representing a non-recurrent (one-time) 
purchase. That is the payment is not recurring, it is normally paid at most 
once (however, such things as refunds may happen).

The class SimpleItem has field .payment which is an instance of 
SimplePayment, a class representing a result of user interaction which led 
to a payment.

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?

The API needs to be quality and usable.

-- 
Victor Porton - http://portonvictor.org

Back to comp.programming | Previous | Next — Next 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