Op woensdag 20 maart 2019 10:51:55 CET schreef Michael Hendry: > Which supports my contention that the use of the term “split” for a Ledger > Entry causes confusion. > Fair enough. As I said if there's a concise yet more clear term to use I'm happy to switch to it.
Personally I'm not convinced yet "Ledger Entry" would be that replacement. Surely it would appeal to people with an accounting background, but it doesn't feel like very intuitive for the casual user just wishing to keep track of its personal finances in GnuCash. As English is not my native language that may be a translation issue though. However perhaps more informal terminology exists to describe subparts of a transaction ? In addition it seems to me this thread has now evolved to discussing two distinct terminology issues: * the use of the word "split" in itself * the use of the term "multi" in "multi-split" to mean "more than two" rather than "two or more". > Would anyone think it odd that a different process would be required when > importing a compound transaction than when importing a simple one? > I think that depends on the input source format: csv is generic and doesn't strictly define how to encode accounting data. GnuCash tries cater for as many formats as possible. So it offers a way to import csv files with only one transaction per line or a csv file where each line consists of one ledger entry/split and hence transaction can span multiple lines. As GnuCash doesn't define the input sources (those come from banks, a spreadsheet, another accounting application,...) I don't see how that could be covered with only one import interface. Regards, Geert _______________________________________________ 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.
