Vanishing transactions and log file

[Derek Atkins]

"Donald Allen" <donaldcallen at gmail.com> writes:

> On Tue, Apr 1, 2008 at 10:51 AM, Derek Atkins <warlord at mit.edu> wrote:
>> "Donald Allen" <donaldcallen at gmail.com> writes:
>>
>>
>> > Thinking about this some more, one *could* imagine the atomic particle
>>  > of the basic register being a transaction, not a split. Then, in a
>>  > case like this, you would see one entry, not two. I think for most
>>  > people (myself initially, and probably for Ross) this would be less
>>  > confusing. But it would also be less informative, as I mentioned in my
>>  > previous message, because without expanding the splits, you would not
>>  > know that there were two splits involving the account (for which
>>  > you've displayed the basic register). I prefer it as it is, having
>>  > figured it out after my first "what's this?" reaction and come to
>>  > realize that it makes sense.
>>
>>  True, one COULD imagine this, but then you have a problem.  When
>>  displaying/editing the split-specific data, which split's data do you
>>  show/edit?
>
> I'm not sure what you mean here, but I'll answer what I think you
> mean: you show all the splits for the transaction. What I have in mind
> is simple -- it's the transaction journal with the ability to collapse

Don, you clearly didn't follow the conversion.  The question is
when you have a transaction with multiple splits into the current
account but you want that collapsed into a single line, how do you
display it?  You're combining the split information from multiple
splits into a single line (which only contains enough information
for the information from ONE split).   So how do you do that?  And
then what happens when you try to edit it?

> the splits so just the transaction header shows (or maybe it comes up
> that way and you expand with the split button). But, as I've said
> previously, collapsed mode doesn't convey that there are multiple
> splits (typically two for stock closing transactions) involving the
> account in question.

Right.  It doesn't convey that information, which is why it's even
MORE confusing.

>  Yes, it might sound nice to be able to combine the values
>>  into a single line, but what do you do if you try to change the
>>  number?
>
> Distribute the new number to the splits in the same proportion they
> were initially?

Ummm......  That doesn't always work.  In particular it doesn't work
in the case of a Cap Gains split because they aren't really a
proportion.

-derek
-- 
       Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
       Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board  (SIPB)
       URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/    PP-ASEL-IA     N1NWH
       warlord at MIT.EDU                        PGP key available