On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Christophe Rhodes <[email protected]> wrote:
> Which dates? The ledger format allows for multiple dates (primary, > auxiliary, maybe others). In one ordering, a balance assertion (I don't > use assignments) may be accurate; in another ordering, say by auxiliary > date, the balance assertion may well be wrong. > To me this means, the ordering of transactions should be selectable. > > Balance assertions by parse order work reasonably well when the > transaction order is the bank's and the assertion is the bank > statement's balance, or when the transaction order is from > stubs/receipts and the assertion is from some other kind of summation. > But since ledger permits essentially arbitrary reordering, the balance > assertions can't work in all orders: one has to be chosen. Given this, > parse order doesn't seem to be too unreasonable. > But isn't parse order an internal detail of the implementation? Different parsers work differently, especially in the context of included files. I think, in the very least, parse order needs to be re-defined in user terms, independent of implementation details. -- *Harshad RJ <http://lavadip.com>* -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Ledger" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
