Any Interest in Configurable Imbalance name

[Andy Den Tandt]

When following this thread, I was convinced that the Imbalance account was a
nuisance which should only be needed in exceptional cases as the common case
should be to complete the transactions in one pass.

But I had to enter a series of transactions and I kept an eye out. Now I
can't imagine working without the Imbalance account!

I create many transactions by importing an OTX file from my bank. I never
select the accounts during the import-wizard, but I prefer to do this in the
regular view/editor where it is easier to create splits; compare with
previous payments; create new accounts; etc. Consequently, I have to
complete the import using an Imbalance account. To keep everything tidy I've
organized the Imbalance accounts as Special Accounts:Imbalance-* 

I consider it a (minor) bug that translated versions of GnuCash do not reuse
existing Imbalance accounts but insist on having an account with the
(current) localized name. E.g. first run GnuCash in Dutch and it (correctly)
creates an account 'Ongebalanceerd-EUR'. But then set GnuCash to English and
it creates an 'Unbalanced-EUR' account instead of reusing the existing
account.

When completing a complex split transaction, the Imbalance account sometimes
accidentally gets created/used. This was mentioned here already.

I also noticed that when I enter a transaction, I'm frequently copying
descriptions or account names from previous transactions of the account I'm
working on. As switching to a different transaction enters/completes the
transaction I'm still working on, I'm often entering unbalanced
transactions, just to continue editing them 5 seconds later. If future
GnuCash would start complaining about unbalanced transactions, it would have
to do so when closing the account-view (and not when entering/completing a
transaction) or find a way to keep transactions 'in editing mode' a lot
longer (so I have time to copy/paste stuff; create accounts; ...)

These remarks are just provided FYI. At this moment, I don't know what to
prefer: I see strong benefits in preventing the user from entering a
transaction that doesn't balance, but I fear that it would prevent me from
working efficiently.

Can someone shed some light on how the above actions would have worked in
the old 1.8 version?

Andy Den Tandt