[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [lmi] Number of "eligibles" [Was: Group premium quotes]

From: Vadim Zeitlin
Subject: Re: [lmi] Number of "eligibles" [Was: Group premium quotes]
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 19:11:07 +0200

On Wed, 26 Aug 2015 15:54:48 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:

GC> On 2015-08-18 21:41, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
GC> > On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 18:50:33 +0000 Greg Chicares <address@hidden> wrote:
GC> [...]
GC> > GC> PDF says:
GC> > GC>   "Number of eligibles: 2"
GC> > GC> but the count should probably be one, not two.
GC> [...guessing...]
GC> > GC> that the composite ledger has been counted rather than ignored.
GC> > 
GC> >  Yes, you're right.
GC> I generally feel uncomfortable about adding "+ 1" or "- 1" to fix an anomaly
GC> (because that often indicates a fencepost error that is likely to manifest
GC> itself in multiple ways, some of which may have eluded notice), but in this
GC> case that's what I did (committed 20150826T1546Z, revision 6265) because the
GC> composite isn't an additional fencepost--it's different in kind. (I tried
GC> adding an extra member for this count, but it didn't seem cleaner that way.)

 FWIW I planned to fix it by not incrementing row_num_ for the composite
ledger in the first place. I'm not sure if you consider this cleaner or
not, but it seems ever so slightly preferable to me.


reply via email to

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