Double-entry explanation

Tim Wunder tim at thewunders.org
Mon Sep 1 15:32:47 CDT 2003


On Monday 01 September 2003 2:25 pm, someone claiming to be Tripp Lilley 
wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Jon Lapham wrote:
> > Okay, I'm convinced.  Let's go back to a modified version of your
> > original idea:
> >
> > Simple Transaction (2 accounts)
> > Split Transaction (3 or more accounts)
> >
> > ...this has the advantage that we always use the familiar GnuCash
> > terminology (split transaction) but it is clear to a new user what we
> > mean b/c we explicitly state (2 accounts) and (3 or more accounts).
>
> Not to throw a wrench into things, but I'd like to point out that one can
> have a split transaction that happens entirely within a single account:
>
> 	http://perspex.com/hacks/gnucash/misc/single-account-split.png
>
> While this isn't terribly likely to happen, it -is- somewhat likely that
> one would have a split with one line coming from a single account (say,
> cash), and a few lines coming from another single account (say, expenses)
> detailing line items.
>
> Now, I know, most often, a split is going to be three accounts or more,
> because the split would most likely be recording, e.g., individual items
> in different expense accounts, and sales tax in its own expense account,
> and so forth.
>
> I just wanted to point out, though, that referring to these as "2 account"
> and "3 or more account" transactions implies certain restrictions that
> aren't there in fact...
>
> (FYI, I'm not doing this to be pedantic, but that doesn't mean the end
> result isn't me being pedantic :( ).
>

So...
Are we back to 
Simple Transaction
Complex (Split) Transaction
and just leaving off any reference to the number of accounts involved?

Tim

-- 
RedHat 8.0 Kernel 2.4.20-19.8,  KDE 3.1.3, Xfree86 4.2.1
  2:30pm  up 9 days, 20:27,  2 users,  load average: 0.39, 0.39, 0.27
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts



More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list