Double-entry explanation

[Tim Wunder]

On Monday 01 September 2003 2:46 pm, someone claiming to be Jon Lapham wrote:
> Tim Wunder wrote:
> > So...
> > Are we back to
> > Simple Transaction
> > Complex (Split) Transaction
> > and just leaving off any reference to the number of accounts involved?
>
> Ahhhhhh...... kerplung.  (or, whatever the sound is of someone jumping
> from a tall bridge into the river below).
>
> :)
>
> "3 or more accounts" refers to the number of accounts involved in the
> transaction, I do not see how this requires that they are different
> accounts.  I think we are still fine.
>
> There are always better ways to describe things, but often that requires
> longer explanations.  At some point we have to put a title on the
> section and move on, we can be *very* clear what we mean in the body
> text.  Another complication, for example, is that you can enter a "split
> transaction" with only 2 accounts, so is it wrong to not mention this in
> the title of the simple transaction?
>

A "simple" transaction does not reqire use of the Split mechanism, a complex 
one does.

> So, let's vote on the following two proposals for the section titles:
>
> Simple Transaction (2 accounts)
> Split Transaction (3 or more accounts)
>
> or
>
> Simple Transaction Which May or May Not Involve the Split Transaction
> Mechanism but Must Only Involve 2 Accounts
>
> Transaction Involving More that Two Accounts In Which May or May Not be
> Different Accounts but Will Always Involve the Split Transaction Mechanism

Given those choices, well, I'll take the first one. But I still like leaving 
off the nimber of accounts reference better. As a clever man once said, 
"There are always better ways to describe things, but often that requires  
longer explanations. At some point we have to put a title on the section and 
move on, we can be *very* clear what we mean in the body text."

And again, you're doing the actual *work* here... do what you want.

Tim