On Wed, Dec 17, 2008 at 10:22 AM, Kevin Hoctor <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Dec 17, 2008, at 9:35 AM, Patrick Burleson wrote: > >> Something I enjoyed in other financial tracking applications was their >> auto-incrementing of the check numbers when entering a check. >> Actually, it was really max(check_number) + 1. Right now MW memorizes >> the check number?! If no auto-increment, then how about taking check >> number off the auto-memorization list? > > > Patrick, > > This is on the request list. I never liked it much in Quicken because > both Judy and I would write checks and the sequence was never clean. I > guess this works if only one person controls the checkbook and only > one sequence of numbers is active at a time. >
Yep, luckily for me we only have one account, so check numbers sequence is never in question. > With regards to check features, it's funny to be dealing with the > exact opposite in the U.K.. They don't have checking accounts and > instead call them "current" accounts. Checks are considered very old > fashioned and rarely used or seen, yet so many U.S. customers write > lots of checks still and some even want MoneyWell to print checks. > Personally, I've worked very hard to eliminate check writing in my > life so I guess I lean towards the British in this respect. > I'm down to 2 checks a month. One of them can never be anything other than a check. :-( I guess my biggest beef is check # being in the list of fields that's memorized with a transaction. I'd vote for excluding that field from memorization before worrying about auto-increment. Thanks, Patrick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "No Thirst Software User Forum" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/no-thirst-software?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
