>>>>> Martin Blais <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
For me, this loses the value of balance assertions for a convenience I don't presently need. > 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). My credit card statements regularly have transactions within one day, for which other transactions on that same day occur only on the next statement. Hence, not having intra-day assertions would mean I couldn't make use of assertions to help manage reconciliation of statements (my primary use of them, in fact). The goal of Ledger has always been flexibility first, allowing users to define their own semantics. I recognize that Beancount is much more oriented toward an accounting-centric semantics for the sake of that use case. This is a healthy division, and I think a cross-pollinating one too. Intra-day assertions could have other uses too, which I'm unaware of at the moment. That's reason enough for me to be unwilling to sacrifice them for convenience. There may even be other solutions here that allow us to have both that have yet to be explored. John -- --- 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.
