On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 11:06:57AM -0500, Josh Sled wrote: > In the example account hierearchies, it seems that we should encourage > the creation of placeholder accounts for all the non-leaf accounts ... > any objections to my changing the datafiles in this way?
I don't know... Are any groups of sub-accounts not intended to be an exhaustive categorization of their parents? I know I create sub-accounts where I intend the parent to remain postable as a place for less-specialized transactions. I might leave some of these as postable: Liabilites:Loans Expenses:Interest Income:Interest Income Expenses:Auto Expenses:Insurance Expenses:Professional Fees Expenses:Repairs Expenses:Taxes Expenses:Travel and Entertainment Expenses:Utilites Expenses:Entertainment Assets:Investments:Retirement Expenses:Taxes (Spouse) Assets:Investments:Spouse Retirement Maybe it's a matter of taste, but I can imagine that these categories may be specific enough for some user's tastes, and some transactions may not fit into one of the provided sub-accounts. I would agree that many of the other non-leaf accounts should default to placeholder. In the end, it's just a default anyway, but I'd prefer to err toward leaving some of them postable since I think the pain of either 1) making a new subaccount when you don't really want to or 2) unmarking a account as placeholder is slightly greater than the danger of leaving a parent account as postable even when you don't intend to post to it. I think at least the top-level accounts should be placeholders, though. -chris _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
