[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [lmi] Group premium quotes

From: Greg Chicares
Subject: Re: [lmi] Group premium quotes
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2015 15:48:51 +0000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/31.3.0

On 2015-08-14 00:12, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2015 00:58:50 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
> GC> On 2015-07-17 02:25, Greg Chicares wrote:
> GC>     double          InitModalPrem00; // without riders
> GC>     double          InitModalPrem01; // with WP only
> GC>     double          InitModalPrem10; // with ADB only
> GC>     double          InitModalPrem11; // with ADB and WP
> GC> have been added to class LedgerInvariant on 20150813T0039Z.
>  Thank you, I've updated the code to use them, both for the column values
> and for the totals. One small problem I have now is that the value of these
> fields seems to vary significantly among the different cells of the same
> census and in the example I'm using they have a different number of digits,
> making the centered numbers look ugly (IMHO). I had chosen to center them
> because the prototype did so, but I wonder if I should switch to right
> aligning them instead?

Let's just keep following the prototype. (It's not to my taste, either.)

> GC> Key:
> GC>   WP = "waiver of premium"
> GC>   ADB = "accidental death benefit"
>  Thank you for the ADB explanation, I was wondering why using Android debug
> bridge increased the premium so much...

White Phosphorus.

> GC> I went all cryptic on the names out of fear that the rider combinations
> GC> might expand in future years, and I don't want names like
> GC>   
> InitialModalPremium_WithWaiver_WithoutAccidentalDeathBenefit_WithSpouseRider_WithoutChildrenRider_WithGuaranteedInsurabilityOption_WithoutTermRider
> GC> when
> GC>   InitModalPrem101010
> GC> might reasonably be considered no less readable.
>  I'm sorry but I disagree. The current name choices seem to be really
> unfortunate to me, it will be all but impossible to notice using a wrong
> field.

Any mixup will be found immediately in testing, most likely before
it even gets committed.

> I'd definitely prefer to use symbolic names if it's not too late to
> change your mind.

Changing it now would affect all the 1201 regression-test files that I
just archived, so, sorry, that train has already left the station.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]