On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:27 PM, John Wiegley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Martin Blais <[email protected]> writes: > > > Is there any benefit in having both the date and a string to identify a > lot? > > I'm currently using an optional date to identify lots, but this got me > > thinking, maybe it would make sense to generalize this to just a > string.... > > Well, lot dates are DATES, and lot notes are STRINGS, so you can > conceivable > create reports like: > > ledger reg --lots --limit 'lot_date < [this year]' > > If we only used strings, you couldn't reliably do such date comparisons. > Hmmm interesting. What's a scenario in which this is useful? I haven't needed to do this yet... I only use lots when I have same-cost transactions - they're optional - to disambiguate when reducing an existing position. My scenario is: I have this current inventory (at a particular date), and I want to specify which lot to reduce. I never need to list a specific subset of lots in that way; if I'm looking in the past, I can view the inventory at a particular date (imagine restricting on the entry dates instead of the "lot date"). -- --- 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/d/optout.
