[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[amibroker] Laptop and Wireless



PureBytes Links

Trading Reference Links




<SPAN 
class=885190013-03022004>Sorry if I seemed critical, really didn't mean to be, 
just trying to focus on the problem I was reporting. I hope you know how 
incredibly much I respect your contributions here and the detailed and 
imaginative coding work you do.
<SPAN 
class=885190013-03022004> 
<SPAN 
class=885190013-03022004>Dave
<BLOCKQUOTE 
>Dave,sorry 
  for replying your question in "the wrong way", I will be more careful in 
  the future.Dimitris Tsokakis--- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Dave 
  Merrill" <dmerrill@xxxx> wrote:> Hi Dimitris, thanks for 
  replying, but I don't think I understand your> answer. It seems 
  like you're showing me the benefits of putting the> stochastic 
  transformation into a separate function, but you're preaching to> 
  the choir. I *know* why I want to do that, that's why I it *was* written 
  as> a function in the code I sent. I've had that StochasticTransform 
  function in> my standard #include file for a long time; I just made 
  it part of the code> itself so people could se the whole thing in 
  one place.> > But none of that has to do with the problem I'm 
  seeing. Did you run the code> I provided and look at the resulting 
  charts, before and after un-commenting> out those lines I 
  suggested? Please do try it; there's something going on> that I 
  don't understand, and I'd love your comments.> > Anyone else try 
  this?> > Dave>   -----Original 
  Message----->   From: DIMITRIS TSOKAKIS> > 
  >   Dave,>   Suppose we want to create the 
  Stoch transformation for various>   arrays, say MACD() and 
  Signal().>   The first method is analytic, you have to repeat 
  4 lines per array>   a1=Signal();t=14;>   
  H1=HHV(a1,t);L1=LLV(a1,t);>   
  st=100*(a1-L1)/(H1-L1);>   
  Plot(st,"StochSignal",1,1);>   
  a1=MACD();t=14;>   
  H1=HHV(a1,t);L1=LLV(a1,t);>   
  st=100*(a1-L1)/(H1-L1);>   Plot(st,"StochMACD",2,1);> 
  >   The function method will give the same result in an 
  elegant form.>   Define first the st-function steps and then 
  apply for any array.>   //The Stochastic 
  transformation>   function st(array,t)>   
  {>   H1=HHV(array,t);>   
  L1=LLV(array,t);>   return 
  100*(array-L1)/(H1-L1);>   }>   
  Plot(st(Signal(),14),"StochSignal",1,1);>   
  Plot(st(MACD(),14),"StochMACD",2,1);> >   The 
  advantage of the function method is obvious.>   Dimitris 
  Tsokakis>   PS: Note here that this st-function is a 
  pseudo-stochastic, since the>   arrays do not have 
  HLC.>   Expect saturated values for both 0 or 100 
  limits.>   --- In amibroker@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "Dave Merrill" 
  <dmerrill@xxxx>>   wrote:>   > I'm 
  seeing a weird problem that I think may be the result of>   
  something I>   > don't understand about variable scoping. 
  Check this out:>   >>   > 
  ---------------------->   > function StochTransform(array, 
  period) {>   >       local 
  LowValue;>   >       
  LowValue = LLV(array, period);>   
  >       return 100 * (array - LowValue) / 
  (HHV(array, period) ->   LowValue);>   > 
  }>   >>   > Diff = Signal(12, 26, 
  9);>   > StochDiff = StochTransform(Diff, 
  5);>   >>   > //JunkIgnored = 
  StochTransform(C, 14);      // <<< ENABLING 
  THIS>   CHANGES Diff,>   > 
  WHY???>   > //JunkIgnored = StochTransform(Diff, 
  14);      // <<< BUT 
  THIS>   DOESN'T>   > 
  ---------------------->   >>   > First 
  enter it into IB as given above, look at the chart, then>   
  enable the>   > first of the two commented out lines at 
  the bottom. Notice that>   Diff (blue>   
  > histogram) changes drastically. Now enable the second one and 
  not>   the first,>   > and things go 
  back to "normal".>   >>   > I don't 
  get this at all. It seems like it must be due to>   
  interaction between>   > the two calls to StochTransform, 
  and in fact, if you create a copy>   of 
  the>   > function called StochTransform2, and call that 
  the second time, no>   problem.>   > 
  Guessing further from the fact that using the same value 
  for>   the 'array'>   > parameter in both 
  cases also prevents the problem, most likely the>   
  conflict>   > is with the reuse of that formal parameter 
  when the function is>   called the>   > 
  second time.>   >>   > I've never seen 
  this behavior before, and I don't understand it.>   Among 
  other>   > things, if it's really true that you can't call 
  the same function>   more than>   > 
  once without interactions like this, a lot of code I've 
  written>   that I>   > thought worked, 
  didn't. Or is there some simple stupid bug in this>   
  test that>   > I'm missing?>   
  >>   > Ideas? Tomasz?>   
  >>   > Dave


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








Yahoo! Groups Sponsor


  ADVERTISEMENT











Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/amibroker/ 
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:amibroker-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.