Hello, I agree with this view. Shortening ref(C, -5) to C(-5) is fine but not to C(5) - that's confusing. It's a pity that this option is not offered in the poll.
Thomas > Sorry , but imo the new forms are critic and counter intuitive. > > C(5) looks back 5 bars.... what would looking forward look like? > C(-5)? > > imo, very confusing. I can't help but wonder what made this idea > surface :-)) > > herman > > Thursday, February 19, 2009, 11:08:25 AM, you wrote: > > Hello, > > > > As a convenience feature I was contemplating for some time to allow > > shorter syntax to very common operation of referring to past > > elements of the array. As you now current syntax to refer to past > > is: > > > > Ref( array, -bars ) > > > > So close five bars back is Ref( C, -5 ) > > > > I don't have any technical problem with adding new > > operator that will make it shorter, > > but I am wondering about the most preferrable "form", > > that is easy to use and does not create confusion. > > > > So I would like to ask you which > > "short form" would you prefer. > > - c...@5 > > - C#5 > > - C(5) > > - I don't like the idea at all > > > > Please use this poll to vote: > > http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/surveys?id=2828485 > > > > Thank you. > > > > Best regards, > > Tomasz Janeczko > > amibroker.com > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > **** IMPORTANT PLEASE READ **** > > This group is for the discussion between users only. > > This is *NOT* technical support channel. > > > > TO GET TECHNICAL SUPPORT send an e-mail directly to > > SUPPORT {at} amibroker.com > > > > TO SUBMIT SUGGESTIONS please use FEEDBACK CENTER at > > http://www.amibroker.com/feedback/ > > (submissions sent via other channels won't be considered) > > > > For NEW RELEASE ANNOUNCEMENTS and other news always check DEVLOG: > > http://www.amibroker.com/devlog/ > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links > > > > > > >
