Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

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

Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

> > 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

Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

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

Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

> "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

Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

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

Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

> "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

Re: Conversion nightmares: gnucash to ledger-cli

Dear Rushad, Rushad Faridi writes: > Firs I tried ledger 2.x approach since 3.x can not do the conversion. I > had not much of a problem installing 2.x but after I issued the command " > ledger -f myfile.gnucash print > myfile.txt" it spitted out 27 lines of >

Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

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 >

Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

> "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>

Re: Why I don’t want to use auxiliary dates for bank reconciliation … or anything else

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

Re: Reporting (reg and bal) with historical prices

Looks like -H is what I need in this case. Thanks a lot John! On 30 May 2017 at 21:38, John Wiegley wrote: > > "VS" == Vladimir Sorokin writes: > > VS> I'm trying to generate reports for an account which has transactions in > VS> different