Spam:****, Re: Transaction Search.

[Colin Scott]

> Oh, right, because there's not a query term method to search for an
> "other account".  The search is really searching Splits, not
> Transactions, and the query Split->Acc == Acc1 & Split->Acc == Acc2 
> is always the Empty Set. 

I infer that the way this is implemented is, as the "refine query" annotation implies, to create a new composite query incorporating both steps, and then apply that query to the full database.  What would be far more intuitive when working sequentially like this would be not to make a composite query, but to apply the second query to the result-set produced by the first.  This would not only be intuitive behaviour when working in this way, but would make the search system significantly more useful!

I've reported all that in bugzilla, but of course have not considered implemntation details.  Is what I suggest actually a practical proposition?

Colin