[GNC] Transaction ordering on num field

[David Carlson]

My bank doesn't print leading zeros on my checks

On Thu, Jun 10, 2021 at 9:42 AM will at theprescotts.com <will at theprescotts.com>
wrote:

> For those that care, it is perfectly easy to have numbers sort correctly
> with an alphanumeric sort, simply include the leading zeros.
> If you think your check numbers will never exceed 1000, just number the
> checks: 0001, 0002,... 0100, 0101, etc.If you expect to write more than
> 1000, add another leading 0.
>
> Will
>
> On 2021 Jun 10, at 06-10 01:40:24, flywire <flywire0 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> How can special customisation to sort a GnuCash field be justified when it
> makes future transitions even more difficult? This field should be sorted
> in
> a standard way. It's clearly the old *numeric* field for sorting cheques,
> and the banks tell us cheques are as good as dead. When it was changed to
> alphanumeric the sort order should have changed too, ie 10 before 2.
>
> I note David's comment on current functionality. Significant changes should
> occur at major versions.
>
>
>
> --
> Sent from: http://gnucash.1415818.n4.nabble.com/GnuCash-User-f1415819.html
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see
> https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnucash-user mailing list
> gnucash-user at gnucash.org
> To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
> https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
> If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see
> https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
> -----
> Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
> You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
>


-- 
David Carlson