>
> I feel like we've added a lot of work (assuming no automation)
>
Agreed. Without automation, it’s probably not worth the effort. In fact,
this whole discussion started with me asking for help with the automation,
and others asking why I would want to do such a thing.
> without solving
On Thu, Jun 1, 2017, at 06:17 AM, Peter McArthur wrote:
>> 1. This seems to make it no easier to detect and correct errors than
>>a tick mark on your bank statement. To add the final lines you
>>still have to go through the statement line by line.>>
>>
>> 2. There still seems to be no
>
> 1. This seems to make it no easier to detect and correct errors than a
> tick mark on your bank statement. To add the final lines you still have to
> go through the statement line by line.
>
> 2. There still seems to be no record tieing your entry to the line item on
> your bank
On Wed, May 31, 2017, at 04:39 AM, Peter McArthur wrote:
> This topic arose in the context of bank reconciliation, so, let’s
> talk about bank reconciliation. The traditional, pen-and-paper way of
> doing it is:
> 1. Go through your accounts and your bank statement, matching them
> item
> "PM" == Peter McArthur writes:
PM> I'm not experienced with beancount but, so I may have misunderstood you,
PM> but I don't really see what you're getting at. Power and flexibility are
PM> good. The ability to add constraints is also good. They work best when
PM>
> "o" == o1bigtenor writes:
o> So - -- from your perspective you don't see a value in having something
o> defined that would help with the date paid, date cleared, date issued (more
o> for invoicing) as a specific 'data type' available for use?
Not as part of the
On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 18:58:10 UTC+1, John Wiegley wrote:
>
> > "PM" == Peter McArthur writes:
>
> PM> The manual shows us how unclear the semantics are. Most people seem to
> use
> PM> auxiliary dates as a date when a cheque is *cleared*. But the manual
>
On Wed, May 31, 2017 at 12:59 PM, John Wiegley
wrote:
> > "PM" == Peter McArthur writes:
>
> PM> The manual shows us how unclear the semantics are. Most people seem to
> use
> PM> auxiliary dates as a date when a cheque is *cleared*. But the
> "PM" == Peter McArthur writes:
PM> The manual shows us how unclear the semantics are. Most people seem to use
PM> auxiliary dates as a date when a cheque is *cleared*. But the manual also
PM> shows them being used when a cheque is *paid*:
It should be noted here
On Tue, May 30, 2017 at 9:39 PM, Peter McArthur
wrote:
> First I should describe my philosophy.
>
> We’re all computer nerds here, I think, so we all know the value of
> simple, flexible abstractions with strong mathematical underpinnings.
> Relational databases, the
First I should describe my philosophy.
We’re all computer nerds here, I think, so we all know the value of simple,
flexible abstractions with strong mathematical underpinnings. Relational
databases, the lambda calculus, finite automata, context free grammars and
so on. I believe
11 matches
Mail list logo