I believe the suggestion was a property that determined whether a node could
or could not have transactions entered on it and that the property would
*default* to a value of false. However, I think it would be more accurate
to say that the default value would be false for top-level nodes only.
-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Peticolas [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, November 15, 1999 4:48 PM
To: Derek Atkins
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Success!
> 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.
I agree that being able to set an account as 'no transactions'
would be useful, but I disagree that we should force this on
all users. You may think that non-leaf accounts should never
have transactions, but not everyone may agree with how you
organize your accounts.
Why should you force all your transactions into leaf accounts?
For example, I have a 'gifts' account that has a sub-category of 'xmas',
since I like to know how much I've spent on xmas gifts specifically.
Of course, I buy other gifts, but rather than having a 'non-xmas' or
'misc' account it makes perfect sense, at least to me, to put those
expenses in the non-leaf 'gifts'.
dave
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
