[GNC-dev] New balsheet (and P&L report), API considerations, and (slow?) KVP in Account.cpp

[Christopher Lam]

Oops https://screenshots.firefox.com/pttTjFEtYTJLXzam/null

Sorry for spam, fixed screenshot


On 04/07/18 21:20, Christopher Lam wrote:
>
> Forgot to include a screenshot to illustrate
>
> https://screenshots.firefox.com/Z7HOv5pb2qbRc5NP/null
>
> - recursive balance vs. multilevel (and saner alignment of numbers)
> - common-currency vs. original currency (notice better handling of 
> missing USD/GBP prices than balance-sheet.scm)
> - for this illustration periodic columns have been disabled
>
> C
>
>
> On 04/07/18 20:13, Christopher Lam wrote:
>>
>> I've restored multilevel-subtotals... using an easier tack than 
>> previously: instead of keeping lists(1 per account-depth) of lists (1 
>> per column) of collectors, it'll just climb up the hierarchy and 
>> print parent acc's balance+children until the next account-depth is 
>> reached.
>>
>> Please help beta test!
>>
>> I've made some cosmetic changes too. eg dates in their own row, 
>> double-underline for grand-total only.
>>
>> I do not think it'll be wise to reduce font sizes for account-depth.
>>
>> Still remaining:
>>
>> - fix negative signs strategy
>>
>>
>> On 03/07/18 16:17, Christopher Lam wrote:
>>> Broadly yes, one approach is that parent accounts always show totals 
>>> for themselves+children, the other approach is the totals appear 
>>> after each parent+children.
>>>
>>> Same information presented in 2 different ways.
>>>
>>> The difference is that the recursive subtotals are easier.... When 
>>> reaching an account, it just queries if it has children, and if yes 
>>> check if they have own amount, and if yes insert next line for own 
>>> account.
>>>
>>> Multilevel subtotals require collectors to keeping track of amounts 
>>> while cycling the account list.
>>>
>>> On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, 15:41 Geert Janssens <geert.gnucash at kobaltwit.be 
>>> <mailto:geert.gnucash at kobaltwit.be>> wrote:
>>>
>>>     Op dinsdag 3 juli 2018 02:57:50 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
>>>     > Hi Stephen, Dave &al
>>>     >
>>>     > Thank you -
>>>     >
>>>     > Dave - the changes are merely cosmetic therefore easy.
>>>     >
>>>     > It sounds there are still 2 desired presentational types - (1)
>>>     Dave's
>>>     > approach = *recursive-bal* - 'parent' accounts generally
>>>     collect their
>>>     > children account amounts; if they also have their own amount,
>>>     the latter is
>>>     > rendered on the next line, indented as a child account. (2)
>>>     Stephen's
>>>     > approach = *multilevel-bal* - parent accounts' amounts are
>>>     hidden unless
>>>     > they exist.
>>>     >
>>>     I'm not sure I understand the difference here. Isn't this
>>>     expressing the same
>>>     thing twice in different ways ? Perhaps I'm missing a subtlety
>>>     in the English
>>>     language...
>>>
>>>     Or is the difference whether the totals are shown above or below
>>>     the children
>>>     ?
>>>
>>>     Geert
>>>
>>>
>>
>