Konstantin Osipov wrote:
> * Øystein Grøvlen <Oystein.Grovlen@stripped> [09/05/22 21:05]:
>> So far my Value object knows nothing about arithmetics, all they know
>> about is how to convert between types. However, it needs to distinguish
>> between more than just four types. For example, conversion between
>> integer and string will be different for a Field_timestamp than for a
>> Field_long.
>
> This just doesn't make sense to me. It's like saying that
> conversion between an integer and a string will be different
> depending whether this integer represents a datetime or, well, an
> integer.
>
> Isn't it easier to say (and code) that a conversion from an
> integer to a string is not the same as conversion from a datetime to
> a string? What am I missing?
That's really what I tried to say. Both integer and datetime will
internally be represented by a longlong, but the conversion from
longlong to string will be different.
>
> Perhaps we need to talk on IRC to better understand the language.
>
>> AFAIU, this is not within the scope of the task I have been given and
>> how it is reflected in the worklog description. However, the worklog
>> has not yet been approved so it remains to see if I have misunderstood.
>
> What is the scope of the task?
From the worklog HLS: The main value of this task is to centralize the
data conversion between types.
>
>> The way I have understood it from discussions in the re-engineering
>> team, I am not going to transfer ownership of data from Item to Value.
>> So far, Value objects are just used for return values that can easily
>> converted to other types.
>
> A Value object that doesn't hold any value... perhaps should be
> called something else.
The Value object holds a value, but Value objects are returned by value.
Hence, I do think we can talk about ownership here.
--
Øystein
