On 7/30/14 8:03 PM, Martin Blais wrote:
As I understand it, you are always matching postings, but the payee
is propagated to each posting. I think of it as "postings with given
account and payee," but you may be more comfortable if you say
"postings with a given account and in a transaction with given
payee." (Although this might also be less correct because you can
override the payee per posting in a transaction.)
That seems like an odd choice. If it was constrained to only select
subsets of transactions, then you'd have a claim to balance the reports.
Any subset of transactions will balance (because each of them
individually does). So for instance, my view of what "account = X"
should mean is "match all transactions that have at least one posting
with account X". You should never be able to isolate postings from their
transactions, it breaks the DE system.
Then if you want to restrict what you end up printing out, that's fine,
but that's an entirely different operation, one that only filters what
gets rendered, and that would depend only on the report type, it would
never affect any calculations.
As I see it, the print command prints whole transactions and filters by
transaction, but register prints individual postings and filters by
posting, so there's no expectation of it showing you balanced data.
I haven't needed or wanted more than one kind of filtering (eg --limit
and --display in ledger). Sometimes (not often) I'll do a multi-step
filter by using print to select the transactions I want and pipe the
result into register.
--
---
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.
