transaction auto-completion

[Dave Peticolas]

Phillip J Shelton writes:
> Dave Peticolas wrote:
> 
> > Phillip J Shelton writes:
> > > Was not the suggestion to only not copy the memo's?  You can copy
> > > splits with out memo's??
> >
> > Right, but the reason offered was that they were not visible.
> > If you're not going to copy things which aren't displayed,
> > then for consistency you shouldn't be copying any part of
> > splits. Only omitting memo fields seems rather arbitrary
> > and unintuitive. What is the underlying principle?
> >
> > dave
> 
> Ok.  I had not thought that one out.  Perhaps , if the UI is not too crowed
> allready, have some switch that allowed for different amounts of stuff copied
> ??

That's a possibility. The reason I find this confusing may be due to
the way I use memos. For example, in my paycheck statment, the memo
fields describe each of the different parts of my paycheck, including
taxes, etc. So when I auto-complete that transaction, it makes perfect
sense to retain the memo fields, because they apply in the same way.
To me, that's what auto-completion is for.

But I suppose if you generally use memo fields in a way that would
be more specific to an individual transaction rather than a class
of transactions (say, describing the specific item bought at a store
you regularly frequent), then the memo field would need to be changed
each time.

Is that the reason for the request?

dave