AW: AW: Reconciled statements

[Linas Vepstas]

--JgQwtEuHJzHdouWu
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Wed, Apr 25, 2001 at 05:32:17PM -0700, Dave Peticolas was heard to remar=
k:
>  writes:
> >=20
> > How about this: for unreconciled transactions, maybe we should minimize=
/get
> > rid of the 'are you sure' dialogs; and for 'cleared' splits, we should =
have a
> > 'are you sure' dialog as it stands today,  and for reconciled splits, w=
e=20
> > should have a 'really, really, we will ask you twice are you sure?' dia=
log ..
>=20
> I'd be wary of getting rid of it entirely.=20

Part of me agrees, but at times, when I'm in bulk-transaction-entry mode,
having to deal with the 'are you sure' dialog is a few extra annoying
keystrokes that is annoying.

How about this: edited but uncommited transactions are a different color.
You can have several of these outstanding.  But you *must* commit/reject all
of them before closing the window.=20

(Yes, this is probably hard to implement. Just food for thought).

> But I have added additional
> warnings for reconciled transactions in cvs.

I saw, good.
>=20
> dave

--=20
Linas Vepstas -- linas@gnumatic.com -- http://www.gnumatic.com/

--JgQwtEuHJzHdouWu
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.1 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE653qOZKmaggEEWTMRAjEfAJ9ugrCYfBy6PBWFFq31JC/v6g3u9ACeMlpI
Jcxk7jPXvNI7tlIMbd8rEJg=
=9g95
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--JgQwtEuHJzHdouWu--