If I might comment on this topic, might thoughts are below Michael's...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> On 22 Mar 2019, at 15:10, Derek Atkins <de...@ihtfp.com> wrote:
>
> D <sunfis...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> It seems circular to say that there is a distinction between a simple
>> and compound transaction, and then say a simple transaction is a
>> special case compound transaction. Then we're back at defining the
>> difference between, say, a "split" transaction versus a "multi-split"
>> transaction, which we're trying to move away from as justifiably
>> confusing.
>
> The difference is "exactly 2 splits" vs "more than 2 splits".
>
> Simple tranaction: exactly 2 splits. The basic view mode in the
> ledger lets you enter these simply, and the Transfer field shows the
> "other" account.
>
> Compound transaction: > 2 splits. The Transfer field shows "Split
> Transaction" and you must expand the transaction to see the other
> accounts.
>
> Those ARE the definitions. If you don't like them, well, I'm sorry, but
> it's like saying you don't like the sky being Blue and would prefer if
> it was purple with pink polka dots.
>
> The fact remains, a simple transaction *is* a special case of a compound
> transaction as far as the UI is concerned. If you expand a simple
> transaction you'll see both splits.
>
>> Calling one a "simple" transaction, and the others "compound" seems
>> like enough. Perhaps the explanation of the technical aspects of this
>> (i.e., the structure of a two sided simple, as opposed to an n-sided
>> {n>2} compound transaction), could use the term "split," as it is
>> defined by Gnucash. This would disambiguate the use of the term
>> "split," such that it would only be used for this specific case.
>
> I am fine with that approach. In my mind it's always clear, tho, that
> "split transaction" implies "compound transaction", and "transaction
> splits" are the individual entries that tie the transaction to each
> account. But whatever, I've only been using these terms within gnucash
> for 20 years now. What do I know? :)
Well, and with the greatest respect, could it be that you?ve grown up with it
so you don?t see the potential for confusion?
To recap: I?ve been using Gnucash for 9 years, and I?ve managed to cope with
?splits? without looking at the definitions too closely.
I don?t use the CSV importer, and it wasn?t until there was a thread about
multi-splits and the CSV importer that I tried to get my head around the
nomenclature - and found it confusing.
To me, the term ?split transaction? implies "a transaction that has been split?
as opposed to ?a transaction that is made up from splits?, and it says nothing
about whether the transaction itself is Simple or Compound.
Although a molecule of carbon monoxide is made up from an atom each of carbon
and oxygen, I wouldn?t refer to either of these atoms as a split.
>
>> Regardless, I am still against the "Ledger entry" locution.
>
> Why?
Good question!
The ledger entry is the atom from which transactions are made; the problem is
that GC?s user interface (very helpfully) facilitates the direct creation of
molecules.
>
> -derek
I realise that the concept of splits is in-with-the-bricks of Gnucash, and that
it wouldn?t be easy to disengage from its use. Now that I have worked out what
it means, it shouldn?t give me any more trouble.
I should probably say no more.
Regards,
Michael
------------------------------
I agree with Michael's points.A simple transaction consists of just one split
but two parts, and saying (pretending) that a simple transaction has two splits
is misleading.
I see no problems with the use of terms like 'simple transaction' (with one
split and two parts) or with 'compound transactions' (with 2+ splits and 3+
parts), but it doesn't make sense to refer to the parts as splits. Why not just
use the term 'parts' or 'transaction parts' or even invent a new word
'transparts'; (after all, GnuCash is a made up word too.)
Just because GnuCash developers previously defined the 'parts' of a transaction
as 'splits' doesn't mean that the definition shouldn't be changed to make it
clearer.
Kind regards,Alan
_______________________________________________
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.
