|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Ken,
Yes, it was a nasty surprise when the format was changed to
not allow numbers in the formulas. While the names are certainly
more flexible as it allowed your list of formulas to be independent
of ordinal position, it also forced you to go through and rename
all your custom formulas. Since it was documented that partial
names were available, it was logical to append the old ordinal number
on the name and just wrap quotes around the number as a quick fix. At
least that is how I converted several formulas that were nested four or
five layers deep. This may at least explain some of the conversion
problems as some of my formulas have all types of special punctuation in the
formula name.
Thanks,
Ron Stockstill
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of PD Manager
Sent: Thursday, July 27, 2000 4:09 PM
To: 'metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: MetaStock 7.02 EOD
There is not a way to retrieve this information. We have been considering
several possible solutions for the problem but as yet we haven't found one
that ultimately fixes it. As I said, the best remedy is to always use full
formula names in all Fml() and FmlVar() calls.
Of course, in hindsight, I wish we had never allowed partial Fml() name
matches to begin with.
Ken Hunt
Programming Manager
Equis International
-----Original Message-----
From: A.J. Maas [mailto:anthmaas@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Wednesday, July 26, 2000 5:26 PM
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: support@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: MetaStock 7.02 EOD
Is there a way to get the Indicator Names for the Numbers that are being
returned/rejected
by the Debug, like in a list or something?
Else, can we have an option added to Program to compare notes for the
Indicators that
one currently has listed in the Formxxxx.dta (Indicator Builder) and to the
one that is later
the result of the debug action(upgrade conversion)?
The debug message returns always only the # for the rejected
malfunction/syntaxed Indicator,
but there is nowhere near an option in the Program to find out "which
indicator(name)" does
correspond with that # or that does gets mentioned here.
cc - suggestsions@xxxxxxxxx {for adding the option to the Program to
display the Name of
a rejected
Indicator}
Regards,
Ton Maas
ms-irb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Dismiss the ".nospam" bit (including the dot) when replying.
Homepage http://home.planet.nl/~anthmaas
----- Original Message -----
From: "PD Manager" <pdmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: woensdag 26 juli 2000 17:24
Subject: RE: MetaStock 7.02 EOD
> To answer some questions regarding the custom indicator (and other
> formula-based tools):
>
> If you enter a formula that contains a syntax error, the formula is indeed
> saved. The formula with the syntax error is saved, but it is incapable of
> being calculated. If you attempt to calculate such a formula, an
> appropriate error is generated by MetaStock.
>
> We have found that many of our users have numerous formulas that they have
> saved in this fashion. They enter the formula with the syntax error and
for
> whatever reason they do not fix the error. The formula lies dormant in
> their formula list and is forgotten. When the upgrade their MetaStock and
a
> formula update occurs, MetaStock once again points out the syntax errors
> that were stored. Many of our users have taken this to be a bug in the
> update process for formulas. What is actually happening is that the
program
> is merely pointing out that the formula cannot be updated to the new
version
> because of the syntax error that was originally saved.
>
> With that said, there is a quirk in the use of formula names in the Fml()
> calls. Many of our users have taken advantage of the fact that a PARTIAL
> name can be used to reference another formula. Sometimes, when a formula
> file is being upgraded, an error can appear where there was a valid Fml()
> reference before. I can give a discussion of the details of this quirk if
> anybody wants it. Short of that discussion, it is always better to use
FULL
> NAME REFERENCES in your Fml() function calls.
>
> Ken Hunt
> Programming Manager
> Equis International
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Stockstill [mailto:stocks@xxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 2:50 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: MetaStock 7.02 EOD
>
>
> Chuck,
>
> My experience was not quite the same; but I would agree with
> using the Edit function. If you find a problem, you will
> want to correct it (even by comments). The formula
> editor does require valid syntax; my experience was the plot
> failed so then I went and used the editor.
>
> Of course, doing this prep work may not insure a clean upgrade,
> but I would bet it increases your odds.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ron
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Chuck Engstrom
> Sent: Tuesday, July 25, 2000 8:23 AM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: MetaStock 7.02 EOD
>
>
> At 08:25 PM 07/21/2000 GMT, you wrote:
> >Do the following before installation:
> >
> >1. Backup your 6.52a Metastock directory.
> >
> >2. Manually go through your list of custom indicators
> > and verify that each of the formulas still work.
> >
> >3. Manually go through your custom explorations and experts and
> > verify that each of the explorations and experts will work
> etc
>
>
> Ron --
>
> Thanks very much for this very helpful list. I am working my way through
it.
>
> In the process I have discovered that some custom indicators and
> explorations (I haven't gotten to system tests or experts yet) will in
fact
> execute without reporting faults even though custom formulas contained in
> them had long ago been deleted. The function builder will actually save a
> "formula" that makes no sense at all, I now find -- it will point out
> mistakes but go ahead and save your mess if you click CANCEL. Thus it
might
> be more thorough to open each item in its EDIT screen and see if any
> mistakes are reported when you click OK. Do you have any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks again --
>
> Chuck Engstrom
>
>
>
>
>
|