* Martin Michlmayr <[email protected]> [2014-05-29 16:41]: > * Craig Earls <[email protected]> [2014-05-29 13:27]: > > I saw Johns response about--empty but this idea from Martin strikes me as > > wrong. If you have a hierarchical account tree I think it oy makes sense to > > have postings on the "leaves" of the tree. In Martina example it would > > better to say: > > I agree with you in terms of best practice.
Or maybe I don't. ;-) I think I still agree with you in principle, but in practice I think it's fairly common to book things to accounts directly that have further subaccounts. A good example is Assets:Receivable. While I create Assets:Receivable:foo for entities that often owe me something (e.g. my employer or the tax office), I may have minor receivables from entities from time to time... should I really create a Assets:Receivable:foo for them (which is a pain if you want to use --strict --pedantic) or is it simpler to just assign those to Assets:Receivable (without a subaccount)? I haven't quite figured out the answer to this myself. In fact, I wonder whether I should use subaccounts in this example at all. Maybe I should just book everything against Assets:Receivable and then use an ; Entity: tag to track the entity and use --pivot Entity. I'm not sure and I'd like to hear best practices from other people. Martin (who really enjoys all the best practices discussions we've been having lately) -- Martin Michlmayr http://www.cyrius.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/d/optout.
