> On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 12:25:42PM -0500, Richard Wackerbarth wrote:
> > > I think it's good to keep the single-line mode for naive users or
> > > simple transactions.
> > I'm not convinced that single line mode means anything.
> > Eliminate the non-informational fields and a "single line" entry looks very
>
> > much like the pair of JEs in a simple transaction.
> >
> > > I don't see any sensible way to edit split
> > > transactions in single-line mode; maybe it should just be disallowed.
> > I agree. To me, the only thing that we need "single line" for is to compres
> s
> > split transactions for display.
>
> Just to add my $.02. I use single line frequently with the "Duplicate
> Transaction" action for simple recurring transactions. I use this for such
> things as my rent, phone bill, piano lessons, etc., when the only thing that
> changes is the date of the transaction, the check number (if any), and possib
> the amount. The memo and account are the same every time, so single line kee
> them out of view. In these circumstances, single line is faster and easier t
> use. I'd hate to see it go.
I agree, I don't think we should completely disallow editing in single-line
mode. I *think* what people are proposing is not allowing the editing of
multi-split (> 2) transactions in single-line mode, which seems fine. But
for transactions with 2 splits, I don't see any reason to prevent it.
dave
