Fair enough and thanks for the tip. My programming ignorance shows at times, perhaps a lot of the time :-)
--- In [email protected], Graham <kavemanpe...@...> wrote: > > I think using the Ref should be kept just the way it is. I cannot see > how any alternative method would be less confusing to newbies. > > btw you can change > P = (Ref(H,-1) + Ref(L,-1) + Ref(C,-1)) / 3; > to > P = Ref(H+L+C,-1) / 3; > and thus reduce the amount of typing :) > > -- > Cheers > Graham Kav > AFL Writing Service > http://www.aflwriting.com > > > > 2009/2/20 brian_z111 <brian_z...@...>: > > Tomasz, > > > >> I have second thoughts as well, as it truly may create lots of > >>confusion. > > > > No, don't start having doubts now ...you were correct in the first > > place. > > > > The Ref() part of the function was always redundant and overkill for > > such a simple thing (it isn't even really a function is it?). > > > > Signed integers are NOT truly intuitive but actually just > > subconscious habit .... it is in our minds from our school days that > > (-) means go left along the number line and (+) means go right along > > the number line. > > > > Keep to this worldwide (mathematical) convention and all will be well > > e.g. > > > > - in bar index we start at the first bar and go right 0,1,2,3 etc > > - in referencing bars from today, we go left C(-5) or right C (+5) ... > > except that the plus sign is also redundant. > > > > > > I commend you on your attention to detail ... many small improvements > > are just as important as one big one. > > > > The only thing is you are far nicer than me ... I wouldn't poll ... > > the only 'people' I would ask would be my muses, simply because their > > error rate is so low (usually caused by the fact I don't listen). > > > > Many times in the past I thought the Ref() was a waste of my typing > > time and very annoying. > > > > Last night I wrote some code, at zboard.wordpress.com, to help the > > community understand Pivots (many seem to be making them > > unnecessarily difficult), > > > > > > It included: > > > > P = (Ref(H,-1) + Ref(L,-1) + Ref(C,-1)) / 3; > > > > ... enough said. > > > > Then again, maybe not. > > > > Please give me: > > > > P = H(-1) + L(-1) + C(-1); > > > > Actually parenthesis or [] doesn't really matter because it is > > dependent on context and it is normal for 'programmers' to be > > particular with syntax (afterall it does change from lanuage to > > language and we have to mentally handle that fact).... you woul be > > better not to concede to soft appeals for syntax preferences because > > any developer of language is soon going to run out of special > > characters if ... technically speaking contextual use of [] is > > efficient and an acceptable way to do it (even for me!) > > > > People don't like change ... in the first place I only learnt Ref () > > from you. > > > > Also, the problems created by look forward oppurtunities are highly > > over-rated ... it is sometimes useful to look forward (for what if > > scenarios or projecting indicators into the future). > > > > We can handle look forward issues ourselves (if not better get a real > > job). > > > > > > IMO you would be better off maintaining consistency of number line > > signed directions everywhere e.g. LLV(array,-5) is the lookback for 5 > > periods and LLV(array,5) is the look forward 5 periods. > > > > Once again it is up to us when and how to use it ... a look forward > > warning in the function manual is quite adequate. > > > > > > > > Two other small details .... just as annoying: > > > > - search inside charts/formulas looking for the one you left there > > sometime last year (what did I call it?)... once you get a lot of > > them you can't keep track of them all, even with folders (syntax > > exhaustion leads us to name AFL files all sorts of wierd, non- > > intuitive things). > > > > - auto completion of typing in FormulaEditor (how about macro for > > custom auto complete?)... typinc the same thing over and over makes > > me cranky. > > > > Also I apologise that I don't use the feedback center ... I empathise > > with you but it is too much like work for me ... I accept my informal > > suggestions get lost in the noise ... at least if I make a major > > suggestion I put it into a semi-formal document that you can pick up > > and file (on the rare occasion that you like the idea). > > > > Also, if I file at the feedback center only a few people see it ... > > if I run a short campaign here then the forum has the chance to > > consider the idea and action it privately if you don't pick it up ... > > IMO that is added value to the FC. > > > > > > I think it is OK to do that as long as the campaign is short and then > > brought to a close (once and for all) or moved elsewhere (like the > > zboard for stats for traders).g > > > > BTW I like a lot of your recent additions to AB ... chart linking is > > great .. AddSummaryRows is a step in the right direction ... > > DaysSince1900 is a very important addition .. lots of other good > > things (sometimes the little things leverage a lot of action). > > > > I often forget to post and thank you for your successes. > > > > brian_z > > > > --- In [email protected], "Tomasz Janeczko" <groups@> > > wrote: > >> > >> Re: [amibroker] A shorter syntax to reference past elements of > > arrayHerman, > >> > >> You are right that it maight be confusing, therefore I was thinking > > about using this short form only to reference past > >> (as it is most common scenario, considering the fact that we all > > the time attempt *not* to look into the future). > >> > >> The whole story is just to make common expressions like C - Ref( > > C, -1 ) shorter, like this: C - C(1) > >> but I have second thoughts as well, as it truly may create lots of > > confusion. > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Tomasz Janeczko > >> amibroker.com > >> ----- Original Message ----- > >> From: Herman > >> To: Tomasz Janeczko > >> Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2009 5:20 PM > >> Subject: Re: [amibroker] A shorter syntax to reference past > > elements of array > >> > >> > >> 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 > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Individual Email | Traditional > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/join > >> > >> > (Yahoo! ID required) > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > mailto:[email protected] > >> > >> > mailto:[email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > [email protected] > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ > >> > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------ > > > > **** 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 > > > > > > > > >
