On Wed, Aug 7, 2013, at 1:02, John Wiegley wrote: > >>>>> Martin Blais <[email protected]> writes: > > > Have you ever thought that Payees often end up functioning like an extra > > subaccount? I've come to realize that for Payees that only ever touch a > > single account, the line is really fuzzy there. I've been entertaining the > > idea of automatically creating subaccounts for payees like that. Any > > thoughts? > > Ledger 3 does support --account=payee, would that be close to what you mean?
I don't know. What does it do? I just spent 10 minutes leafing through the PDF doc for v3, I can't find it. There's an "--account NAME" option that says it prepends a string to all accounts (not what I meant). What I mean is that the last/leaf (not the first/root) component of an account could sometimes be automatically refined by one level, by appending the payee name as a subaccount. An example is illustrative; the following input Transactions with payees "TMobile", "AT&T" and "Verizon" where one posting is always on "Expenses:Phone" could be automatically converted into postings with accounts: Expenses:Phone:TMobile Expenses:Phone:ATT Expenses:Phone:Verizon I'm not entirely sure yet what conditions would unambiguously qualify a payee's transactions to materialize into auto-generated sub-accounts, but it's worth considering. In my own bookkeeping, sometimes I use payee names, and sometimes I use subaccounts. The lines are blurred. (Otherwise, the payees are only rendered, and used to generate "views" of all transactions where the payee appears.) -- --- 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.
