David, when I talk in this thread about "traditional" or "standard" I mean the "Venetian Method" as first published by Fra. Pacioli with ink on paper probably in roman numbers (without zero or minus)
Am 13.09.2018 um 00:00 schrieb David T.: >> * IMHO special options are at least >> in book options: Use Split Action Field for Number. Traditionally >> Transactions are numbered, but some user wish to number splits instead. > Perhaps this is a reflection of the jurisdiction in which you live, but most > users in the US setting up GnuCash for personal use will NOT be concerned > with numbering their transactions or their splits. To be honest, given that > the definition of “split” is rather specific to GnuCash (based on discussions > over terminology I’ve seen in the past on the lists), I have a difficult time > believing that a new user is going to know the difference between numbering > transactions versus numbering (the GnuCash concept of) splits. Today there is no direct need to number them by the user - internally GUIDs are used. In times of ink and paper the entries of the same transaction in the different books where associated by the entry number of the journal. >> in Preferences->Accounts: Reverse Balance Accounts: The traditional >> selection is "Credit Accounts", but some users wish a different view. > I don’t understand why you bring this up here; it’s not on the NAHS assistant. > Both have the same origin: Up to the moment when they were impemented, it was clear, they are not standard. Then there was a bad GUI decision to add "neutral" tooltips which did not say clear, which normal and which a special feature is. This results in confusing not only new users. That is one of the places, where the documentation can lead to improvements of the GUI. Frank _______________________________________________ gnucash-devel mailing list gnucash-devel@gnucash.org https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-devel
