|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
...is really really great!
But I have some suggestions, or rather, I think I do. Feedback from the
group would be good, so Tomasz can get a sense of what would help the most
people the most, and if this stuff is important at all.
My first idea is two new preferences:
- Save backtests (radio buttons)
a) Always
Results of all backtests are saved. This is how it works now.
b) Named formulas only
Only formulas with a name have their results saved; no name = not
saved.
c) Require a formula name for all backtests
If no name is provided, you're alerted and the backtest won't run.
- Use filename as default formula name (checkbox)
When checked, the report system uses the name of the last file loaded as
the name for the saved backtest if SetFormulaName() isn't called. This is
how it works now. When unchecked, only SetFormulaName() sets it. In
combination with the last of the above options, can require that
SetFormulaName() be called explicitly by all backtests.
The problems with my work process that I'm trying to solve are these:
- Whenever I load a saved formula into the AFL window, the reporting system
uses the name of that file as the title of the saved report, unless I call
SetFormulaName(). Even if I've retyped over the entire formula to do
something completely unrelated, that filename is remembered and used,
resulting in misleading and disorganized test archives.
- I forget to call SetFormulaName(), so tests go unnamed, or use an
unrelated name from the last loaded formula.
Neither of these problems are AB's fault, of course, they're due to my work
process not having fully caught up to AB's current capability. I'm trying to
get it to help me adapt (:-)
The second suggestion I have is an optional second parameter to
SetFormulaName(), that sets a "detailed name", for lack of a better word.
This is looking forward to a day when the report explorer has filtering
capability. At that point, I think I'd want to filter the list down to
reports with a certain name ("CMO5", say), and within those, still see a
name that distinguishes each test or type of test ("Plain", "With ADX-RSI
confirmation", etc). To accomplish that, I'd call SetFormulaName("CMO5",
"Plain"), then SetFormulaName("CMO5", "With ADX-RSI confirmation"), and so
on.
My last suggestion is that optimization results optionally also be archived,
one summary line per optimization step, with no details. It would be up to
us to distinguish each step by including relevant optimization parameters in
our SetFormulaName() call.
What do people think of these suggestions? Are they worth Tomasz spending
any time on? (Not that they're necessarily the most important things in any
case.) I'm really so impressed with the new reporting capabilities. They are
still new, so it's possible I'll get used to them and not care about any of
these ideas in the long run, but I doubt it. It's also possible that Tomasz
has even better ideas already in the works that cover all this, or that
other folks here can improve on them.
Dave
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark
Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada.
http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/GHeqlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->
Send BUG REPORTS to bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Send SUGGESTIONS to suggest@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
-----------------------------------------
Post AmiQuote-related messages ONLY to: amiquote@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
(Web page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amiquote/messages/)
--------------------------------------------
Check group FAQ at: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/files/groupfaq.html
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|