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 <[email protected]>: > 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" <gro...@...> > 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 > > > >
