Support for Beancount syntax

[WildeBeast2521]

Is there a plan to provide support for beancount syntax?

[alerque]

Given that only a small subset of ledger/hledger syntax is even supported, I doubt this is going to be in scope unless you or someone else contributes it directly.

On the other hand even as an hledger user, the limited subset of syntax available means I use a different workflow for entries coming from mobile entry and have an import step that transforms the NanoLedger created entries to full hledger format transactions, normalize everything, then place it in the final ledger. You could do something similar to transform NanoLedger's syntax to beancount format as an import.

[WildeBeast2521]

Given that only a small subset of ledger/hledger syntax is even supported, I doubt this is going to be in scope unless you or someone else contributes it directly.

On the other hand even as an hledger user, the limited subset of syntax available means I use a different workflow for entries coming from mobile entry and have an import step that transforms the NanoLedger created entries to full hledger format transactions, normalize everything, then place it in the final ledger. You could do something similar to transform NanoLedger's syntax to beancount format as an import.

Understandable. Will try using a conversion process.

[chvp]

Hi @alerque. I appreciate that you want to help out here in this issue tracker, but please don't act like you are taking any decisions about the direction of this project or the technical challenges that certain features would take.

While this won't be on the immediate roadmap, I don't want to immediately write this feature off. Extracting the parser and generator to a generic backend shouldn't be that hard, especially because not all syntax is supported.

Reopening this as I consider it a valid feature request.

[alerque]

please don't act like you are taking any decisions

Of course. And even though it wasn't understood in this case (and hence I can try to make it more explicit next time), I hope you see I wasn't actually doing that. My message explicitly was speculating on whether it would be considered in scope or not and suggesting a workflow for how to handle this if not / until such a time as it is implemented.