XXX No currency

[koenhandekyn]

any reason why XXX No Currency - part of the ISO 4217 standard - is not included ?

XXX	999	.	No currency

see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_4217

[semmons99]

mostly around its utility. is a XXX in a sense an error state, or should we handle it? I do not know the answer. What do you think @koenhandekyn

any thoughts @antstorm ?

[koenhandekyn]

they added it in the standard i think to be able to model cases where you have 'transactions' in a generic way, and where exceptionally there is no relevant currency and it's just nicer to not have to mess around with NULLs and NILs and related exceptions ;)

it's like this one, a special one, but as they are part of the standard, i would propose to simply follow the standard and include them. i can make a PR if desired but wanted to cross check if there was an explicit reason why they where excluded.

XTS	963	.	Code reserved for testing

[koenhandekyn]

this is the official list in XML format, direct link

https://www.currency-iso.org/dam/downloads/lists/list_one.xml

extract

<CcyNtry>
<CtryNm>ZZ06_Testing_Code</CtryNm>
<CcyNm>Codes specifically reserved for testing purposes</CcyNm>
<Ccy>XTS</Ccy>
<CcyNbr>963</CcyNbr>
<CcyMnrUnts>N.A.</CcyMnrUnts>
</CcyNtry>
<CcyNtry>
<CtryNm>ZZ07_No_Currency</CtryNm>
<CcyNm>The codes assigned for transactions where no currency is involved</CcyNm>
<Ccy>XXX</Ccy>
<CcyNbr>999</CcyNbr>
<CcyMnrUnts>N.A.</CcyMnrUnts>
</CcyNtry>

[semmons99]

The biggest question I have is subunit to unit conversion. Assume this just has no subunits?

I think a PR would make this much easier to discuss if you are willing to make one. Be sure to include a CHANGELOG, CONTRIBUTORS, and minor version update

[antstorm]

@semmons99 agree that adding XXX might get confusing and discussing this over a PR should make is more constructive