Double-entry explanation

Eneko Lacunza listas at enlar.net
Mon Sep 1 22:22:42 CDT 2003


Hi,

El lun, 01 de 09 de 2003 a las 20:58, Tim Wunder escribió:
> A "simple" transaction does not reqire use of the Split mechanism, a complex 
> one does.

	I think that this is the important thing (tm) :)

> > 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."

	I think that first titles are the good ones (tm again) :)

	Just read as follows:

	Simple Transaction (1 debit/1 credit account)
	Split Transaction (At least 2 debit or credit accounts)

	Of course, no 0 accounts in debit or credit is possible :)

	Just my 0.01¢

Regards
	

-- 
Eneko Lacunza <listas at enlar.net>



More information about the gnucash-devel mailing list