That is because I don't think I understood it either.  I will put this
on my list of things to add.

On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 7:39 PM, Martin Blais <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 31, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Simon Michael <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> It would be really nice if the Ledger manual was updated to reflect its
> filtering semantics more clearly.
> I don't think I've come across this detail.
>
>
>
> --
>
> ---
> 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.



-- 
Craig, Corona De Tucson, AZ
enderw88.wordpress.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.

Reply via email to