> On 20 Mar 2019, at 08:23, Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be> wrote: > > Op dinsdag 19 maart 2019 22:10:29 CET schreef Adrien Monteleone: >> I never understood the need or benefit to differentiate simple vs. split >> transactions since *all* transactions are split into two entries at least >> once. Perhaps dropping that distinction is in order, or does it serve some >> purpose that isn’t outweighed by the confusion it causes? >> >> Regards, >> Adrien >> > To my mind it serves a case in that we can offer a simplified input interface > for the two-split transactions. > > We have long had the single-line interface to enter two-split transactions as > most new users find that interface easier to understand and use. > > But this simplified interface can't be extended generically to also support 3- > or-more split transactions. In the personal accounting use case these are > less > common however so we have optimized for the two-split use case (at least > that's what I suppose - it has been like that before I came into the project). > > So you are right that all transactions are multi-split and it's not for the > transactions themselves we differentiate. We differentiate because for the > special case of only two splits we can offer simplified input interfaces. > > Regards, > > Geert
Which supports my contention that the use of the term “split” for a Ledger Entry causes confusion. Would anyone think it odd that a different process would be required when importing a compound transaction than when importing a simple one? Regards, Michael _______________________________________________ gnucash-user mailing list gnucash-user@gnucash.org To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe: https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information. ----- Please remember to CC this list on all your replies. You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
