Cross-reporting ?

[Thiers Botelho]

Well Derek . . .

First of all let me apologize if my wording ended up leading you to this 
unpleasant interpretation.

However, if I'm not mistaken I introduced myself on my first posting as an 
ex-Quicken user, trying to evaluate a possible transition to GnuCash (or a 
possible return to Quicken. Maybe this alternative was not made clear 
enough - sorry for that).

All my questions and examples were based on my previous knowledge of 
Quicken and a general idea of the features I'd like to use in an 
accounting package. And I stated at least three times, thru different 
postings, that I was not a GnuCash user and that I was not familiar with 
GnuCash features. Otherwise I wouldn't have been on this list asking for 
help - which BTW I graciously received, and mainly from yourself.

And when I said "I'll be better off with Quicken" plus some other 
comments, I intended to educatedly finish the discussion with a statement 
that would mean to those following the thread something like, "well folks, 
I came here with a purpose, got your advice and this is the path I'll 
probably take". That's my old-fashioned way of interacting with people - 
much richer than the usual "thank you and bye-bye". As usual, people who 
like to explain too much run the risk of being misinterpreted. But that's 
my style, anyway.

Now, having taken this PR stuff out of the way, I hope we can proceed with 
the technical discussion over the new info you presented below.

About your example of grouping, below:

        Expense:Medicine:Mary
        Expense:Medicine:Chuck

I understand it allows me to group all Medicine expenses. But will it do 
any good when I try to group Chuck's Medicine with Chuck's Food ?

And when you say

        It means the code that exists today doesn't do it, but writing the
        code to add this grouping is _relatively_ simple...  The reports 
are
        easily changed (even easier if you know scheme).

I understand that you mean that in the future, some programmer might add 
this feature (I'm not a programmer BTW), but's that's beyond reach for a 
normal user right now. Is that so ?

Thnx

Thiers





Derek Atkins <warlord at MIT.EDU>
11/07/2003 17:10

 
        Para:   "Thiers Botelho" <thiers at fosfertil-ultrafertil.com.br>
        cc:     gnucash-user at lists.gnucash.org
        cco: 
        Assunto:        Re: Cross-reporting ?


"Thiers Botelho" <thiers at fosfertil-ultrafertil.com.br> writes:

> Well Derek,
> 
> summing up from your own words . . .
> 
> >Well, you could do this by naming account's "Mary's Medicine", but then
> >you couldn't search for "all medicine accounts".
> 
> --means I can't group sub-accounts from different accounts ,

Well, it means you can't group them if you name them this way.  If, 
however,
you named them:

        Expense:Medicine:Mary
        Expense:Medicine:Chuck

Then you could group them more easily...

> AND
> 
> >This certainly looks like a "transaction report" to me..  Most of it
> >is there, but I don't know if it hooks into the action field.
> 
> --means I can't generate a report tied to this Action field (pending 
> further clarification).

It means the code that exists today doesn't do it, but writing the
code to add this grouping is _relatively_ simple...  The reports are
easily changed (even easier if you know scheme).

> >From all this discussion and nice tips from others in this list, I 
gather 
> that, regarding the particular mode d'emploi I wish, I'll be better off 
> with Quicken.
> 
> However, since this is not the only point to consider in the choice of 
> accounting software, I'm not yet 100% sure of which one I'll use. But 
that 
> tends to be the general direction.

FWIW: people who try to hold "well, I'll just use quicken" over our
heads as if it's a threat really grates on me.  Either use Quicken
or use GnuCash -- it's your choice.  But don't keep using Quicken as
a threat.  If you're happy using Quicken then by all means continue to
do so.  I'm not stopping you.  It's not my goal in life to make all
Quicken users want to jump ship.

> Thank you v.m. for your time and assistance. I might be back . . .

And then again, you might not...   *grumble*  more "threats".

> Thiers

-derek

PS: You probably haven't meant the "well, if I can't do it then I'll
just have to use quicken" as a threat, but it certainly comes across
that way.  I just wanted to point out one potential interpretation of
your words.

--