On Sat, 08 Jul 2000, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > Although this is functional, I object to re-denomination because
> > the auditors want the ledger to match the original transaction
> > documents.
> >
> > Once an entry is properly entered, that entry should never change.
>
> The thing that would legitimately need to change would be the name of
> the currency.
>
> Supposing, for instance, the Fed decides that the US Dollar has inflated
> too much, and that they need to issue "new dollars" in a 1:100 ratio
> for the old ones. That is, for $100 of "old" currency, or "old"
> balances, you get $1 in the "new, improved" version.
>
> [Admittedly, this particular scenario is vastly unlikely. Change from
> $USD to the currencies of nations that have suffered from hyperinflation
> such as Israel, Mexico, Germany, and others, or to the not unusual
> scenario of a stock split and the scenario becomes not merely believable,
> but a somewhat common occurance...]
>
> In that case, it is likely that we want to rename all the "old"
> occurances from being "USD" to being "USD.old" or some such thing,
> as _new_ references should reference the commodity as it exists today.
I agree that New Pesos are different from Old Pesos. They MUST be stored in
the database as different entities.
However, I'm not sure that the correct solution is to change the old
designation rather than changing the new one.
All historically archived data would have to be changed. This may not be
possible. However, it is possible to assure that new data is entered in the
new units.
Now, I will allow that you probably should change the display of the old
units to conform to current practice.
> > <humor>
...
> > </humor>
> I don't want to touch this one...
Sit down. Have some coffee and Pi.
--
Gnucash Developer's List
To unsubscribe send empty email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
