Split entries: wrong descriptions?
Sun, 17 Sep 2000 16:59:30 +0200
On Fri, 15 Sep 2000 01:35:04 -0700, you wrote:
>It's partially fixed in that the odd copying semantics for split memos
>are gone. But existing files aren't going to change. It's still not
What does this mean? That in order to get the correct semantic for
split memos I should redo all my accounting from scratch or simply
delete the offending transaction and reenter it?
Either way, 1.4.6 seems to be like 1.4.3: I set up a new file with
bank, income and taxes accounts. Entered a test transaction in Income
of 1200WHT (WHT: ISO for whatever's ;-) split into 1000WHT going to
the bank and 200WHT to taxes. Recorded and clicked Jump from the 1000
line (described as "net income"). Description reads "gross amount"
(the one I used in Income for the total 1200 line).
Oh, by the way, the odd semantics applies to Action/Num too!
Perhaps you meant to say that it's gone from CVS.
>Ok, I understand. Personally, I like seeing the 'sums' line up, but
>I can see your point. I will add an option to give the behavior you
Maybe I'll get used to it, after all you said that that is the correct
way to go if you want sums to be right. Perhaps, rather than changing
the lineup, we could add a subheading that comes out when editing a
split with some labels to give you the idea that columns here have a
different meaning from the rest of the register (i.e., that they're
relative to the split).
Any Quicken ex-users here, to tell us how it handled splits (the right
way or mine) and whether they found it intuitive or not? (disclaimer:
if this is a sensitive flamewar-prone topic, please disregard this
last paragraph). I jumped from Excel to gnucash and my spreadsheet was
not so complex.
Ham Radio: IW4EGQ