RE: [GT] First MAMA-Implementation

["Weigert, Thomas" <weigert AT mst.edu>]

What is the difference between 

{I:Typical}
And
{I:Prices TYPICAL}
In terms of understandability?

Remember that you can use defaults, so you don't have to type the whole
set of series, as you did.

The general pattern of GT is just that you apply indicators to arbitrary
series. For user understandability it is wiser to stick to that pattern,
I think. 

Th.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: kw [mailto:gt
AT
netsrak.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2008 1:16 AM
> To: devel
AT
geniustrader.org
> Subject: RE: [GT] First MAMA-Implementation
> 
> On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 00:22 -0600, Weigert, Thomas wrote:
> > kw,
> >
> > I notice that you are using a non-standard implementation of the
Prices
> > indicator. I remember that you recently sent in updates to the
prices
> > indicator adding various fields.
> >
> > I don't think it is that great of an idea to change I:Prices in this
> > way. I think it would be much better to create a new indicator that
> > provides mean, etc., as these could be applied to other series than
just
> > the prices series.
> >
> > Is there any particular reason why you want to extend I:prices in
this
> > manner?
> 
> Hello Thomas,
> I agree that one could code a generic typical/mean/wclose indicator.
But
> I'm convinced that having those typical/mean/wclose extensions
included
> especially for the price makes sense. By this way one can test various
> indicators by only changing the type of price. It's just the most
> intuitive way to handle this. A generic indicator would be less
> intuitive and less readable. To be readable one would need something
> like {I:TYPICAL {I:Prices HIGH}{I:Prices LOW}{I:Prices CLOSE}} which
> seems to be a bit bulky. Here I do like {I:Prices TYPICAL} a lot more.
> I attached my latest Prices.pm maybe I can convince you that it is not
> an abuse of an existing module.
> 
> regards,
> 
> Karsten
> >
> > Thanks, Th.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: kw [mailto:gt
AT
netsrak.net]
> > > Sent: Tuesday, March 04, 2008 9:27 AM
> > > To: devel
AT
geniustrader.org
> > > Subject: Re: [GT] First MAMA-Implementation
> > >
> > > opps ... found a silly mistake in the Hilbert-transform and added
a
> > > direct start now ... additionally I wrote to Mr. Ehlers to get his
> > > recommendations for initialization.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, 2008-03-04 at 12:29 +0100, kw wrote:
> > > > Following Ehlers Book "Rocket Science for Traders" I implemented
a
> > first
> > > > version of his MAMA ... again the problem of proper indicator
> > > > initialization. Right now I would call its status "alpha".
> > > > I wrote it without knowing the I:G::Container module.
> > > > Thats why there is no calculate routine.
> > > > I post it anyways cause it is working and it's way of
programming
> > might
> > > > be an option for quick-testing EasyLanguage coded TradeStation
> > > > indicators which can almost be copied line by line due to the
> > fifo-lists
> > > > I employed.
> > > >
> > > > regards,
> > > >
> > > > K.