Add, Subtract, Multiply Many

[AyoobMH]

• Please check if the PR fulfills these requirements

• Tests for the changes have been added (for bug fixes / features)
• Docs have been added / updated (for bug fixes / features)

• What kind of change does this PR introduce? (Bug fix, feature, docs update, ...)
  Feature

• What is the current behavior? (You can also link to an open issue here)
  Addition, subtraction, and multiplication can only be done with single values.

• What is the new behavior (if this is a feature change)?
  Addition, subtraction, and multiplication using many values.

• Does this PR introduce a breaking change? (What changes might users need to make in their application due to this PR?)
  NO

• Other information:

• Fixes Add/Subtract multiple amounts together #74

• Credit to @SepehrAsh for opening Add Multiple & Subtract Multiple Functions Added , Some Test Added , … #78 ,but it got closed.

[Rhymond]

Hi @AyoobMH

Thanks for the PR! I was just thinking, maybe we can update original methods to accept variadic parameters instead?

func (m *Money) Add(om ...*Money) (*Money, error)

In that way the functionality to add multiple would exists and it would not introduce any breaking changes. Of course, I would expect to do a sanity check if len(om) != 0 and return error before applying operation.

What do you think?

[AyoobMH]

Hi @Rhymond, thanks for your efforts.

I think updating original methods to have variadic parameters is even better, it wouldn't introduce any redundant code. Are you thinking of updating only Add, Subtract, Multiply? I would be happy to open another PR for that.

[Rhymond]

Hi @Rhymond, thanks for your efforts.

I think updating original methods to have variadic parameters is even better, it wouldn't introduce any redundant code. Are you thinking of updating only Add, Subtract, Multiply? I would be happy to open another PR for that.

Exactly! Yes Add, Subtract and Multiply. Appreciate your time 🙏

[AyoobMH]

Hi @Rhymond

I have modified the PR and added variadic parameters. For checking parameters, I have used panic instead of an error, I believe not passing any parameter is considered a bad use of the package and should not happen during runtime. What do you think?

[AyoobMH]

@totemcaf Thanks for the review, the requested changes were made!

[AyoobMH]

Hi @Rhymond @totemcaf , this PR is ready for review, would appreciate your review, thanks in advance!

[AyoobMH]

Hi @Rhymond, any updated for this PR, thanks in advance!

[Rhymond]

Sorry for late response, LGTM