More digit in currency

[Riki Kurniawan]

I have done some experiments by changing all account smallest fraction to 1/100000 and enter all transaction 1/1000 of it's actual value. For instance I would enter 9,500.00 instead of 9,500,000.00 and 1.500 instead of 1,500.00. This way it will allow  me to enter a transaction in an invoice larger than 9,233,372.04 (I will enter it 9,233.37204 actually considering all account already have 1/10000 as it's smallest fraction).
This works fine but the view in account tree will become messy as it's cannot show any account that have fractions in their transaction correctly, as matter of fact it doesn't show any number at all. This also happens in all reports, such as Account Summary and Balance Sheet. I've tried to change the depth of account showed in Balance Sheet report until I can see the fraction transaction and I can see it alright but it doesn't seem to sum up to it's parent account correctly (all of them don't even show any number). I believe it's just a viewing problem and all transactions still stored correctly as I checked the details of all transaction in all account involved.

Is it a known bug in 1.8.6? Btw I use GNUCash included in mandrake 9.1.2 distro. 

I still think that the best practical solution for this problem is to allow me to enter an invoice in it's real value not 1/1000 of it's value. I believe that the data-type used is supporting this as you said that GC use 2^63/2^64 to represent the numbers, maybe there is a way to change this to become 2^67/2^60 as we wouldn't need the denominator that big anyway. I believe this will benefit lot of people that need to enter big number in their transactions.

>Your limitation of 9,233,372.00 (actually, I bet it's .03 or .04) is
>surprising, but quite understandable.  You see, 2^63 ==
>9223372036854775808 which is the largest number we can represent.  But
>we represent all numbers as fractions, with (2^63)/(2^64).  To be
>limited to 9,233,372 that implies your denominator must be 10^12!
>Whoa!  Why do you need that many significant digits?  Do you really
>need to represent one trillionth of a dollar?