On Tue, Jul 1, 2014 at 8:41 PM, Simon Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 7/1/14 12:19 PM, Martin Blais wrote: > >> I'm starting to put down some thoughts about how to implement a semantic >> for settlement dates (vs. transaction dates) in Beancount. >> >> You can read and comment on a proposal here: >> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1x0qqWGRHi02ef- >> FtUW172SHkdJ8quOZD-Xli7r4Nl_k/ >> > > Some related thoughts: > > - I think "auxiliary date" is just the modern renaming of "effective > date". It's the same concept whether on the transaction or the postings. > Ah, thanks, I didn't know there was a single concept, I thought they were distinct. - There can be more than two dates of interest in real-world transactions. > Do you have a common real-world use case? - Descriptive names for these dates all have ambiguous meanings, eg > depending on whose point of view you're speaking from. For this reason > hledger just calls it --date2 (but --effective or --aux-date will also > work). > > - Ledger's original syntax for setting posting dates is [DATE], > [DATE=DATE2] or [=DATE2] in a posting comment. It now also allows them to > be set with a metadata assignment to "date" (?) in the posting comment. > hledger is similar. > > - Since I became able to set posting dates I've found practically no use > for the second date either on the transaction or on postings. Here's the > style I usually prefer (when I care): > > 2014/4/23 * transfer to simple > assets:personal:bank:wells fargo:checking $-100 ; date:4/28 > assets:personal:bank:simple ; date:4/30 > > and here's another style I have used for extreme clarity with certain > clients :): > > 2014/4/24 * client1 payment received for 201404cl > ; dates: invoiced:4/4, promised:4/18, written:4/18, sent:, > postmarked:4/22, received:4/24, deposited:, cleared: > revenues:business:client1 etc... Do any of these do anything other than change the date the posting is applied to the balance of their corresponding account when enabled (via --aux-date, --effective-date or --date2)? Is HLedger also subject to the "amounts in limbo" problem I describe in my doc, or are you splitting the transaction into multiple balancing ones as I suggest? Thanks, > > > > > > > -- > > --- 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. > -- --- 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.
