On Wed, Dec 18, 2019 at 10:34 PM Stefan Monnier
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> I finally got around to merging the patches I used to use with the old
> >> (minor-mode) version of beancount.el into the new version.
> > Thank you very much for the patch. Do you mind if I split it in a few
> > commits and I submit it with a few tweaks and your attribution as a
> > merge request on bitbucket, so that Martin can easily merge it?
>
> That would be very sweet.

Feel free to send me the newest version of the file as well, I'm off
for a few days.


> >> - New var `beancount-electricity` to control behavior of RET.
> >>   When non-nil, RET at the end of a leg adds the currency if missing (or
> >>   tries to anyway: I think it's done in a too naive way which doesn't
> >>   account for the many ways to specify the amount).
> > I think this should be called `beancount-electric-currency` instead.
>
> When I introduced it I intended for it to do more:
> - do a bit of auto-indentation (that was when beancount-mode didn't
>   have a line-indent-function)
> - re-align the amount (again, it's now done by electric-indent-mode)

That's great.
My amounts are all misaligned and I find it annoying, haven't been
able to find time to fix it properly.
Thanks for doing this.


> - auto-add the next account if it's always been the same so far (never
>   implemented)
>
> But, yes, nowadays it's only the currency.  I don't have any strong
> opinion on the name of the config var.
>
> > Can you be more specific about how this may not work for more complex
> > ways of specifying the amount?
>
> Not really: I only ever use simple amounts (no @ things and whatnot) so
> I not only haven't tested with anything more complex but I can't
> remember what those more complex cases can look like anyway.
>
> Oh I can give you one concrete case I bumped into and never fixed:
>
>     Asset:Account (0.8 * 100) RET
>
> will not insert the currency because the code doesn't recognize "(0.8 *
> 100)" as an amount.
>
> >> - Add a M-RET binding that inserts the date part of a new transaction.
> > I don't enter many transactions manually, but this addition seems
> > reasonable.
>
> Yeah, it's not super useful, admittedly.
> Stefano's suggestion to use the date of the previous transaction might
> be a good alternative.  I don't have strong feelings about it
> should do.  I find the key-binding intuitive and the idea of the
> functionality appealing, although the practice of it is
> rather underwhelming.
>
> Thank you for your rewrite into a major mode: it fixed most of the
> annoyances I encountered in the old mode.
>
>
>         Stefan
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Beancount" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to [email protected].
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/jwvimmddmw6.fsf-monnier%2Bgmane.comp.finance.beancount%40gnu.org.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Beancount" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/CAK21%2BhPuCz97f_624tgucMZTK1Tdqu9WrRmu4TwNq%2B%2ByifHgiQ%40mail.gmail.com.

Reply via email to