On Wed, Jul 2, 2014 at 4:03 AM, John Wiegley <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>>>> Martin Blais <[email protected]> writes: > > > Alright... so here's the punchline: I'm claiming that if Ledger or > HLedger > > gave up on balance assertions attached to postings, if you separated > them as > > I do, just that change, you would both very likely be able to guarantee > > order-independence w.r.t. your input files! Think about it. (If you > don't > > think it would be enough, can you share why?) > > How do you achieve order independence? I often have a statement ending on > a > particular date, with transactions before the statement end on that date, > and > transactions after the statement end on that same date. I use ordering to > specify when exactly the assertion should occur. > Yes, I'm suggesting that making such an assertion should not be possible anymore. You give up this capability, in exchange for the property of order-independence. That's the compromise I made; for me, order-independence is a much more important property than the capability to make balance assertions between transactions within a day. You often have this? What kind of account is this? Bank, credit card, trading? And how often do this occur? I have seen very few cases in 8 years where I could not just increment or decrement the balance assertion date, or skip an assertion (very rarely occurs - it's okay to skip one if you have another one later on, they're entirely optional anyway). -- --- 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.
