Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Not necessarily. The organizational schemes that I think the current
> setup has in mind look more like this:
>
> Income
> Salary
> Consulting
> Foo
> Bar
> Taxes
> FICA
> Capital
> Expenses
> Food
> Rent
> ...
>
> This is the functional structure, and this way the account totals mean
> something. What you're talking about is just a visual structure, and
> perhaps it should be supported in the GUI, but I'm not sure it should
> be part of the engine.
>
> (Of course I'm very far from a financial expert.)
Still, what does it mean to have a transaction in "Taxes", or
"Income"? Transactions really should be in the leaf nodes, like
"Salary" or "FICA". It's the same thing as I propose, just different
names on the folders (parent accounts). It doesn't matter what the
organization is (or the account names), I still maintain that
transactions should only be in leaf nodes, and that 'folders' should
be the summation of it's children, but should never have transactions
itself. If it turns out that you do not have a leaf account to handle
the particular item, then maybe you should have a 'misc' account.
Unfortunately there is no way to enforce this behavior (either in the
GUI or the Engine).
FYI, I have a format like:
Assets
USTrust
Checking
Savings
Vanguard
...
E*Trade
...
It really is the same thing.
-derek
--
Derek Atkins, SB '93 MIT EE, SM '95 MIT Media Laboratory
Member, MIT Student Information Processing Board (SIPB)
URL: http://web.mit.edu/warlord/ PP-ASEL N1NWH
[EMAIL PROTECTED] PGP key available
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
