Based on all this, I propose we remove auto-decimal feature in v2.8. Meanwhile, I will look for another bug to fix. Feel free to point me to a bug that could use some attention.
Thanks, Sumit On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 8:24 PM, John Ralls <jra...@ceridwen.us> wrote: > > > > On Jul 27, 2017, at 6:27 PM, Eric Siegerman <pub08-...@davor.org> wrote: > > > > On Thu, Jul 27, 2017 at 08:20:50AM +0000, David T. via gnucash-devel > wrote: > >> I think of the decimal placement as applying to the final number in the > field > >> (as a sort of edit mask, if you will), rather than a preprocessing > function > >> that would apply to every element in an equation. > > > > I'm not sure that would quite work either. > > > > Currently, for simple numbers with no arithmetic, "1000" gets > > auto-decimal-pointed ("scaled" hereafter), but "4.50" doesn't, > > which are both just what one wants. The same should apply in > > formulas (I think! -- but more about that at the end). Assuming > > two auto-decimal places, consider: > > 1000 + 4.50 > > > > I (think I) want the first term to get scaled, but not the > > second, giving a result of 14.50. > > > > OK, so how about we scale each term separately, so that: > > 1000 * 3 + 450 -> 34.50 > > but also: > > 1000 * 3 + 4.50 -> 34.50 > > ("->" meaning "yields a result of", since "=" just looks wrong > > under the circumstances :-) ). > > > > But then: > > 10.00 * 3 + 4.50 -> 34.50 > > We didn't want to scale the first term after all. > > > > I've thought of a couple of different approaches: > > - scale each term's resulting value if the term only contains > > integers: > > 1000*3 + 4000 -> 30 + 40 = 70.00 > > 1000*3 + 4000. -> 30 + 4000 = 4030.00 > > 1000*3. + 4000 -> 3000 + 40 = 3040.00 > > 1000*3. + 4000. -> 3000 + 4000 = 7000.00 > > > > - scale each term's *first* number if it's an integer, > > but never second or subsequent numbers: > > 1000 * 3 -> 30 > > 1000 * 3. -> 30 > > 1000. * 3 -> 3000 > > 1000. * 3. -> 1000 > > This is based on the thought that ($20 * $3) is meaningless; > > it only makes sense to multiply money by something that isn't > > money > > > > But neither of those works in all situations. > > > > > > The easiest way out, I think, is to never scale formulas at all, > > only simple numbers. So: > > 4000 -> 40.00 # as currently happens > > 40. -> 40.00 # likewise > > But: > > 4000+1 -> 4001.00 > > > > That's how my truly ancient copy of Excel behaves. (I don't > > have access to a modern one.) > > > > > > Or perhaps: for formulas, scale the final result (as you say), > > but only if *all* of the numeric values the user typed are > > integers: > > 1000*3 + 4000 -> 70.00 > > 1000*3 + 4000. -> 7000.00 > > 1000*3. + 4000 -> 7000.00 > > 1000.*3 + 4000 -> 7000.00 > > > > That could boil down to: > > Scale the final result unless the original input string > > contains any "."s (or ","s depending on locale) > > (without even any need to worry whether it's a number or > > a formula). > > > > But given that it's not entirely clear how even a simple: > > 1000 + 4.50 > > should behave, anything with any subtlety at all is going to want > > a fair amount of testing to see whether people actually find it > > usable. So an unsubtle approach like "never scale formulas" is > > probably the safest place to start. > > I agree that the only sane way to have auto-decimal is to disable it if > the input is a formula. The other sane approach is to remove it completely. > > Regards, > John Ralls > > _______________________________________________ > gnucash-devel mailing list > gnucash-devel@gnucash.org > https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel > _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel