Am a little confused ... my impression was that BarIndex() always returned value based on entire array.
I always used code below to get the array index: bi = barindex(); ai = bi - b[0]; From: dturtle887 Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2010 2:52 PM To: [email protected] Subject: [amibroker] Is anybody bothered by BarIndex change in version 5.30? Hi All, My AFL code that I use for charting/explorations/signal generation and real-time trading relies on the BarIndex function as implemented in AB versions prior to 5.30. Upgrading to 5.30 broke my code and I found out with surprise that the reason for that was the new behavior of the BarIndex command. To quote from the User's Guide: "BarIndex() now returns values always starting from zero (even if QuickAFL is turned on)" which means that BarIndex no longer returns absolute bar numbers. For example, LastValue( BarIndex()) is now ALwAYS equal BarCount- 1 (which makes it useless for new bar detection, for example). The recommended workaroud is to use SetBarsRequired( sbrAll). However, this is not a good option because it can slow down execution considerably for a formula of any complexity and a database size > some 1000 bars. In my opinion, the old behavior of the BarIndex function was exactly what was needed because it made possible to use QuickAFL and to access absolute bar numbers at the same time. So I am just wondering whether I am the only one impacted by the change or maybe not enough users tried to upgrade to ver 5.30 to find out yet? Regards, Don
