Vanishing transactions and log file [copy edit]

[Ross Boylan]

......
> > > The problem with that is that it makes the typical case, a transaction
> > > involving exactly 2 splits, awkward.
> > 
> > There really needs to be another "special-basic" mode that shows a
> > basic 2-split transaction in basic mode but shows any multi- (>=3)
> > split transaction in expanded mode.  It would be half-way between
> > basic mode and journal mode, but not quite the auto-split mode.
> > 
> > This new mode would certainly make it more clear....
> 
> That sounds a lot like a solution I was thinking of: in the basic or
> non-focal auto-split mode, if there are multiple splits in the register
> account display them on separate lines in a way that groups them
> together visually, e.g., leaves the date column blank is it is in the
> auto-split pictures attached.  I guess the comment (transaction note)
> would still need to go on a separate line.

Let's try that last paragraph again:
That sounds a lot like a solution I was thinking of: in the basic or
non-focal auto-split mode, if there are multiple splits in the register
account, display them on separate lines in a way that groups them
together visually, e.g., leaves the date column blank as it is in the
auto-split pictures attached.  I guess the comment (transaction note)
would still need to go on a separate line.
> 
> One of the issues with any split-oriented mode is that there are many
> editing operations on a split that are really questionable, like
> deleting it or changing the amount.  This suggests disallowing such
> operations; again the "standard case" of 2 exactly balanced splits pulls
> in the other direction (i.e., permit editing amount or deleting the
> split, understood to mean the whole transaction).
> 
> Ross