> > Imagine the date is followed by 00:00:00. They are instants in time not > entire days. >
If they are meant to be instants in time, and the only possible time is 00:00:00, why should it still be exclusive of the terminal instant? Ledger’s treatment of time has to be consistent between the way time is interpreted when transactions are recorded (in the data file) and the way time is treated in the queries. If we are assuming 00.00.00 time of the day if no time is (or can be) specified, then we have to do the same with transactions. This would imply that all transactions that took place on 2016/03/31 should be assumed to have taken place at 2016/03/31 00:00:00. That by itself is not a sufficient reason for excluding that instant from this query. What we have now is that if I want transactions from April 1, 2015 to March 31, 2016, I have to say, show me transactions from April 1, 2015 to April 1, 2016. Forget ledger and programming for a second. Does this not sound odd from the perspective of an accountant/lay person? That is not how most people would think of “from” and “to”. Vikas -- --- 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.
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
