[lmi-commits] [lmi] master 8f97c07 2/4: Dispel latent confusion

[Greg Chicares]

branch: master
commit 8f97c07f615a80d1a767413222a63aaf50ee77d3
Author: Gregory W. Chicares <address@hidden>
Commit: Gregory W. Chicares <address@hidden>

    Dispel latent confusion
    
    A negative account value clearly mustn't induce a negative corridor.
    
    The original code wasn't actually incorrect, because std::max()
    wouldn't choose its second argument if it were negative (as long
    as its first argument is never negative, as is now asserted):
    
         DBReflectingCorr = std::max
             (DBIgnoringCorr
    -        ,YearsCorridorFactor * cash_value_for_corridor
    +        ,YearsCorridorFactor * std::max(0.0, cash_value_for_corridor)
             );
    
    but no good can come from allowing the second argument to be negative
    when that's obviously contrary to Congressional intent.
---
 ihs_avmly.cpp | 4 +++-
 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/ihs_avmly.cpp b/ihs_avmly.cpp
index eb2171d..d9bee90 100644
--- a/ihs_avmly.cpp
+++ b/ihs_avmly.cpp
@@ -1616,6 +1616,7 @@ void AccountValue::TxSetDeathBft()
             }
             break;
         }
+    LMI_ASSERT(0.0 <= DBIgnoringCorr);
 
     // Surrender charges are generally ignored here, but any negative
     // surrender charge must be subtracted, increasing the account value.
@@ -1633,9 +1634,10 @@ void AccountValue::TxSetDeathBft()
 
     DBReflectingCorr = std::max
         (DBIgnoringCorr
-        ,YearsCorridorFactor * cash_value_for_corridor
+        ,YearsCorridorFactor * std::max(0.0, cash_value_for_corridor)
         );
     DBReflectingCorr = round_death_benefit()(DBReflectingCorr);
+    LMI_ASSERT(0.0 <= DBReflectingCorr);
     // This overrides the value assigned above. There's more than one
     // way to interpret 7702A "death benefit"; this is just one.
     // TAXATION !! Use DB_Irc7702BftIsSpecAmt