I’m not sure ‘ledger entry’ is a prime choice either. If we were to consider
the pen and paper world, this is done as a ‘journal entry’ but that entry
always has two components (debit and credit) with at minimum two accounts
involved. I’m going to dig up my accounting textbook and see how they reference
the entries but I’m going to hazard an early guess that there is no mention of
the individual parts of the transaction other than debit/credit.
Regards,
Adrien
> On Mar 21, 2019, at 9:46 AM, D via gnucash-user <gnucash-user@gnucash.org>
> wrote:
>
> It seems circular to say that there is a distinction between a simple and
> compound transaction, and then say a simple transaction is a special case
> compound transaction. Then we're back at defining the difference between,
> say, a "split" transaction versus a "multi-split" transaction, which we're
> trying to move away from as justifiably confusing.
>
> Calling one a "simple" transaction, and the others "compound" seems like
> enough. Perhaps the explanation of the technical aspects of this (i.e., the
> structure of a two sided simple, as opposed to an n-sided {n>2} compound
> transaction), could use the term "split," as it is defined by Gnucash. This
> would disambiguate the use of the term "split," such that it would only be
> used for this specific case.
>
> Regardless, I am still against the "Ledger entry" locution.
>
> Perhaps we need a translation from American English to British English...
>
> David
>
_______________________________________________
gnucash-user mailing list
gnucash-user@gnucash.org
To update your subscription preferences or to unsubscribe:
https://lists.gnucash.org/mailman/listinfo/gnucash-user
If you are using Nabble or Gmane, please see
https://wiki.gnucash.org/wiki/Mailing_Lists for more information.
-----
Please remember to CC this list on all your replies.
You can do this by using Reply-To-List or Reply-All.
