Isn't that what the effective date notation is for?
On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 1:34 PM, Christophe Rhodes <[email protected]> wrote: > Craig Earls <[email protected]> writes: > > > If an assertion for a balance on 2012/12/31 is in a file that is included > > prior to a relevant transaction WITH AN EARLIER DATE. the earlier > > transaction is calculated as if it were after the assertion. > > So, this makes sense to me (believe it or not), and I use it as a > feature. My bank sometimes sends me credit card statements with a given > statement date, and then in subsequent months sends me new statements > with transactions with dates preceding the previous statement's dates, > probably because it has taken some time for a transaction to work its > way through the system, but once it has its effective date was the date > that I paid for something. > > The transactions then go in ledger files in statement order, and balance > assertions work as I (but not you :-) expect them to work; on the other > hand, sorting by date gives the what-retroactively-actually-happened > story. (Given that transactions can have multiple dates, and that > there's no enforced policy on what the dates mean, I don't think that > there's anything else that a balance assertion can mean other than > through file position). > > That's my thinking, anyway. > > Christophe > > -- Craig, Corona De Tucson, AZ enderw88.wordpress.com
