Still at
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/christopherlam/gnucash/maint-balsheet-pnl/gnucash/report/standard-reports/balsheet-pnl.scm
Latest - removed accountname formatting in recursive-bal. Now they are
styled normally but the amounts are bold/bigger if they contain
children-amounts.
https://screenshots.firefox.com/NcMKts75npXbP4Bc/null
C
On 05/07/18 03:40, Stephen M. Butler wrote:
Could you repost the location to pull the latest? My memory is
over-full and appears to be working the LIFO method of cleanup.
On 07/04/2018 05:13 AM, Christopher Lam wrote:
I've restored multilevel-subtotals... using an easier tack than
previously: instead of keeping lists(1 per account-depth) of lists (1
per column) of collectors, it'll just climb up the hierarchy and print
parent acc's balance+children until the next account-depth is reached.
Please help beta test!
I've made some cosmetic changes too. eg dates in their own row,
double-underline for grand-total only.
I do not think it'll be wise to reduce font sizes for account-depth.
Still remaining:
- fix negative signs strategy
On 03/07/18 16:17, Christopher Lam wrote:
Broadly yes, one approach is that parent accounts always show totals
for themselves+children, the other approach is the totals appear
after each parent+children.
Same information presented in 2 different ways.
The difference is that the recursive subtotals are easier.... When
reaching an account, it just queries if it has children, and if yes
check if they have own amount, and if yes insert next line for own
account.
Multilevel subtotals require collectors to keeping track of amounts
while cycling the account list.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, 15:41 Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be
<mailto:geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be>> wrote:
Op dinsdag 3 juli 2018 02:57:50 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
> Hi Stephen, Dave &al
>
> Thank you -
>
> Dave - the changes are merely cosmetic therefore easy.
>
> It sounds there are still 2 desired presentational types - (1)
Dave's
> approach = *recursive-bal* - 'parent' accounts generally
collect their
> children account amounts; if they also have their own amount,
the latter is
> rendered on the next line, indented as a child account. (2)
Stephen's
> approach = *multilevel-bal* - parent accounts' amounts are
hidden unless
> they exist.
>
I'm not sure I understand the difference here. Isn't this
expressing the same
thing twice in different ways ? Perhaps I'm missing a subtlety in
the English
language...
Or is the difference whether the totals are shown above or below
the children
?
Geert
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
