On Monday 01 September 2003 2:25 pm, someone claiming to be Tripp Lilley wrote: > On Mon, 1 Sep 2003, Jon Lapham wrote: > > Okay, I'm convinced. Let's go back to a modified version of your > > original idea: > > > > Simple Transaction (2 accounts) > > Split Transaction (3 or more accounts) > > > > ...this has the advantage that we always use the familiar GnuCash > > terminology (split transaction) but it is clear to a new user what we > > mean b/c we explicitly state (2 accounts) and (3 or more accounts). > > Not to throw a wrench into things, but I'd like to point out that one can > have a split transaction that happens entirely within a single account: > > http://perspex.com/hacks/gnucash/misc/single-account-split.png > > While this isn't terribly likely to happen, it -is- somewhat likely that > one would have a split with one line coming from a single account (say, > cash), and a few lines coming from another single account (say, expenses) > detailing line items. > > Now, I know, most often, a split is going to be three accounts or more, > because the split would most likely be recording, e.g., individual items > in different expense accounts, and sales tax in its own expense account, > and so forth. > > I just wanted to point out, though, that referring to these as "2 account" > and "3 or more account" transactions implies certain restrictions that > aren't there in fact... > > (FYI, I'm not doing this to be pedantic, but that doesn't mean the end > result isn't me being pedantic :( ). >
So... Are we back to Simple Transaction Complex (Split) Transaction and just leaving off any reference to the number of accounts involved? Tim -- RedHat 8.0 Kernel 2.4.20-19.8, KDE 3.1.3, Xfree86 4.2.1 2:30pm up 9 days, 20:27, 2 users, load average: 0.39, 0.39, 0.27 It's what you learn after you know it all that counts _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.gnucash.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
