|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
Ken Hunt:
You have pressed my red button again. The can of worms exists and the
problem should be corrected.
You sound too much like a child that doesn't want to clean up his room. You
seem to forget that some of the users are very knowledgeable programmers!
Memory is cheap cheap cheap these days. Just look at prices on the internet
or call your local computer mega store. Additional memory requirements is no
justification for your attitude. There are probably higher management
decisions involved. It cost me a new computer when V 5.x came out: it needed
a pentium as it wouldn't run properly on a 386. This was more expensive
than additional memory, and Equis wasn't concerned about the cost to upgrade
to V 5.x, so please spare us this weak excuse about additional memory
requirements.
There are other software packages coming on the market that provide the
capability that Equis is unwilling to put into Metastock.
Just scrap the existing program and start from scratch and include a
programming language interface (VB, C++ , Delphi, or whatever).
Lionel Issen
lissen@xxxxxxxxx
----- Original Message -----
From: "PD Manager" <pdmanager@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2001 9:58 AM
Subject: RE: Current Day!
> At the risk of opening this can of worms again: you are correct in your
> assumption. All numbers in MetaStock are stored as single-precision
> floating point numbers. With this type of floating point representation,
> the computer only guarantees 7 digits of precision. When you have a
number
> that exceeds this number of digits, any digits beyond the seventh are not
> guaranteed to be accurate. Any numbers that contain more digits than 7
are
> only approximations.
>
> To restate from past discussions on the subject: In the future, we could
> move to double precision numbers to get 15 digits of precision (any digits
> beyond the 15th would be inaccurate), but this would more than double the
> memory requirements of the program. The additional memory requirements of
> this approach is why the decision to make this change has not been made up
> to this point.
>
> Ken Hunt
> Programming Manager
> Equis International
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: John R [mailto:jrdrp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 3:52 PM
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Current Day!
>
>
> I would guess this problem is caused by the underlying floating point
> representation MS probably uses for numeric variables. i.e. losing
accuracy
> at the extreme limits of range.
>
> Instead of using full century why not try using just 2 digits i.e. 00, 01,
> 99. Or if year collating order is reqd. 3 digits i.e. 098 (for 1998) 099
> (for 1999) 100 (for 2000) 101 (for 2001) etc.
>
> Haven't checked any of this!
>
> John
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "C.S." <csaxe@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 8:38 PM
> Subject: Re: Current Day!
>
>
> I tried the equation backwards to see if DDMMYYYY would work.
>
> DOM:=DayOfMonth();
> MON:=Month();
> YR:=Year();
> YR+(MON*10000)+(DOM*1000000)
>
> It works for the first day but not for the days at the end of the month.
> for 4/30/2001 I get 30042000 and not 30042001.
>
> -Corey
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Brann
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 9:36 AM
> Subject: RE: Current Day!
>
>
> Hi L
>
> Thanks. Version 7.02 end of day version.
>
> I am also getting results such as 20001032 (Oct 32nd, 2000) when I
should
> be getting 20001101 (Nov 1st,2000). Interesting eh?
>
> Steve
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]On Behalf Of Lionel Issen
> Sent: 02 May 2001 14:52
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Current Day!
>
>
> Steve:
> This is an excellent concise method.
>
> What version are you using?
>
> Lionel Issen
> lissen@xxxxxxxxx
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Brann
> To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2001 7:05 AM
> Subject: Current Day!
>
>
> Hi
>
> I use the following in my explorations to denote the date of the
last
> price data in the format yyyymmdd;
>
> DayOfMonth()+(Month()*100)+(Year()*10000)
>
> However, this fails if the date is the first of the month such as
> March 1st 2001, instead of getting 20010301 I get 20010300!
>
> Has anyone else experienced this and if so is there a solution? By
> the way, using DayOfMonth() on its own produces 01.
>
> Thanks in advance
>
> Steve
>
|