This time attached.... > -----Original Message----- > From: Weigert, Thomas > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 10:00 AM > To: 'devel AT geniustrader.org' > Subject: RE: [GT] New EMA and backup SEMA > > I should give a word of caution regarding the reimplemented EMA. > > While I tested it and compared it with TA_lib regarding output, and found > it to work, both when used inside of indicators and when used from the > command line, I found one situation where it does not work as it should: > > When I use it inside of the SMI I recently wrote (a rather complex use of > nested indicators) I find that for some reason I don't understand the SMA > that starts of the EMA is not recorded properly, and so the EMA fails. I > cannot see what causes that but am exploring. (If I change the computation > of the starting point to just use the current value rather than the n-day > SMA, then there are no problems.) Note that while having many other > problems, the original EMA did not have this difficulty. > > I imagine it has to do with the nesting of indicators and dependencies and > the I:Generic:ByName, that somewhere some update gets lost. I will explore > further and hopefully uncover another important insight re GT which I am > obviously still missing.... > > I am attaching SEMA.pm, which is the EMA starting with the actual value of > the data series. > > Th. > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Robert A. Schmied [mailto:ras AT acm.org] > > Sent: Friday, February 29, 2008 1:38 AM > > To: devel AT geniustrader.org > > Subject: Re: [GT] New EMA > > > > > > But currently > > > that is what is happening.... I could try to make the EMA work like > SMA > > > as one need not do the check on the interval (it just uses the > > > dependencies to compute the SMA for the starting value. > > >
Attachment:
SEMA.pm
Description: SEMA.pm