Thanks Justus, your answer really puts it into context, which indeed helps me.
On Friday, 29 November 2019 02:54:07 UTC+1, Justus Pendleton wrote: > > On Friday, November 29, 2019 at 7:01:27 AM UTC+7, nugget wrote: > >> What would be the clean way of balancing both accounts other than >> hardcoding a transaction and changing it everytime some historic >> transactions pops up? >> > > I would suggest not to use nested accounts like you have in your example. > Don't put transactions in Assets:Parent. In the real world, banks and > brokerages generally don't allow accounts to work like in your example. > There's a beancount plugin called "leafonly" -- > https://aumayr.github.io/beancount-docs-static/api_reference/beancount.plugins.html#module-beancount.plugins.leafonly > > -- which is how most accounts should be structured, with only rare > exceptions. > > In any case, dealing with "historic transactions that pop up" is always > going to cause problems with balance statements. The solution is to not > have historic transactions popping up -- don't write balance statements > when you have unknown(?!) outstanding transactions -- or accept that you > will need to rewrite your beancount history & transactions. That pad does > that automagically for you is not a good thing IMHO. > > I think that pad statements should be used very sparingly. They are > convenient but a little too magical. You get 99% of the benefit, with no > confusion, by simply writing the equivalent pad transaction yourself and > making it explicit. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Beancount" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to beancount+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/beancount/d9c5c99e-93e8-40d5-bb04-00aadb2c3035%40googlegroups.com.
