Oops https://screenshots.firefox.com/pttTjFEtYTJLXzam/null
Sorry for spam, fixed screenshot
On 04/07/18 21:20, Christopher Lam wrote:
Forgot to include a screenshot to illustrate
https://screenshots.firefox.com/Z7HOv5pb2qbRc5NP/null
- recursive balance vs. multilevel (and saner alignment of numbers)
- common-currency vs. original currency (notice better handling of
missing USD/GBP prices than balance-sheet.scm)
- for this illustration periodic columns have been disabled
C
On 04/07/18 20:13, Christopher Lam wrote:
I've restored multilevel-subtotals... using an easier tack than
previously: instead of keeping lists(1 per account-depth) of lists (1
per column) of collectors, it'll just climb up the hierarchy and
print parent acc's balance+children until the next account-depth is
reached.
Please help beta test!
I've made some cosmetic changes too. eg dates in their own row,
double-underline for grand-total only.
I do not think it'll be wise to reduce font sizes for account-depth.
Still remaining:
- fix negative signs strategy
On 03/07/18 16:17, Christopher Lam wrote:
Broadly yes, one approach is that parent accounts always show totals
for themselves+children, the other approach is the totals appear
after each parent+children.
Same information presented in 2 different ways.
The difference is that the recursive subtotals are easier.... When
reaching an account, it just queries if it has children, and if yes
check if they have own amount, and if yes insert next line for own
account.
Multilevel subtotals require collectors to keeping track of amounts
while cycling the account list.
On Tue, 3 Jul 2018, 15:41 Geert Janssens <geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be
<mailto:geert.gnuc...@kobaltwit.be>> wrote:
Op dinsdag 3 juli 2018 02:57:50 CEST schreef Christopher Lam:
> Hi Stephen, Dave &al
>
> Thank you -
>
> Dave - the changes are merely cosmetic therefore easy.
>
> It sounds there are still 2 desired presentational types - (1)
Dave's
> approach = *recursive-bal* - 'parent' accounts generally
collect their
> children account amounts; if they also have their own amount,
the latter is
> rendered on the next line, indented as a child account. (2)
Stephen's
> approach = *multilevel-bal* - parent accounts' amounts are
hidden unless
> they exist.
>
I'm not sure I understand the difference here. Isn't this
expressing the same
thing twice in different ways ? Perhaps I'm missing a subtlety
in the English
language...
Or is the difference whether the totals are shown above or below
the children
?
Geert
_______________________________________________
gnucash-devel mailing list
gnucash-devel@gnucash.org
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
