Re: Bug 533738 - Budget report: Option Show full account names not supported
On Aug 10, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov zeldi...@gmail.com wrote: User can select only specific accounts, not at the root of the account tree, when building this report. With this use case full account name can be helpful, so I'd suggest to fix that isssue instead of removing the option from the code (or just hide it, but do not close the bug) The root of the account tree is never visible and never named anywhere. If, as Carsten says, the full hierarchy is always displayed with sub-accounts indented, there's not much point to displaying the full account names for the sub-accounts. On the other hand, if Carsten is mistaken and one can select subaccounts and have them displayed without their parents, ISTM the correct thing to do is to always display the full account name of each highest-level account on the report. Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Gnucash c++
Hi Aaron, thanks for investing time in Gnucash and also in its development towards more future-proof programming technologies. I was a bit puzzled about the benefit of switching the normal compiling from C to C++, just by itself. IMHO, there is of course an immediate benefit if the data structures move from plain C structs to C++ classes, with constructor/destructor and such. If you plan to do such a transition with any of gnucash's data structures, of course every code using those will have to be C++. However, just changing this into C++ doesn't also solve the problem here: The usage of the C structs in the code is just that: C structs, with foo_new() and foo_delete() functions and maybe even glib's reference counting. To really use C++ classes instead, every single usage of those old C idioms will have to be replaced by proper C++ constructs. IMHO, just switching the C compiling to C++ doesn't quite bring you much gain here. Do you think it helps you much? I have some doubts. I see some more benefit when changing individual data structures to C++, then switching the old C functions into wrappers that make the new C++ behaviour available to the C side. This means the existing C code can continue to compile in C, and the next steps would rather be to open the possibility for new C++ code such as unittests and maybe new GUI code in C++ (or python or something similar). IMHO this would be more benefitial. What do others think? Regards, Christian Am Mittwoch, 6. August 2014, 13:26:14 schrieb Aaron Laws: The motivation is to investigate a different strategy for migrating to C++. I was skeptical that it would work at all, but, through argument, I couldn't come up with any solid reasons why it couldn't work, so I decided to give it a go. The strategy is: Step 1) Get the project to compile as C++. Step 2) add poison to remove non c++ idioms, etc. Step 3) Make higher level changes. And the strategy entails that these steps are followed quite strictly. So far, I don't consider Step 1 complete, because although the project compiles and links, it's not shippable ... perhaps not even close :-). Like... nothing works. ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
Re: Bug 533738 - Budget report: Option Show full account names not supported
Hi, Dmitry is absolutely right: once you pick a single account from a lower level then the user has no chance to show the parent information in the report. John's proposal sound reasonable to me. Thanks for pointing that out. I will update the bug with these comments. Kind regards, Carsten On 08/11/2014 03:52 PM, John Ralls wrote: On Aug 10, 2014, at 10:13 PM, Dmitry Pavlov zeldi...@gmail.com wrote: User can select only specific accounts, not at the root of the account tree, when building this report. With this use case full account name can be helpful, so I'd suggest to fix that isssue instead of removing the option from the code (or just hide it, but do not close the bug) The root of the account tree is never visible and never named anywhere. If, as Carsten says, the full hierarchy is always displayed with sub-accounts indented, there's not much point to displaying the full account names for the sub-accounts. On the other hand, if Carsten is mistaken and one can select subaccounts and have them displayed without their parents, ISTM the correct thing to do is to always display the full account name of each highest-level account on the report. Regards, John Ralls ___ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
