RE: [GT] First MAMA-Implementation

[kw <gt AT netsrak.net>]

On Wed, 2008-03-05 at 08:13 -0600, Weigert, Thomas wrote:
> What is the difference between 
> 
> {I:Typical}
> And
> {I:Prices TYPICAL}
> In terms of understandability?

:) I was expecting this, when I clicked send.
But {I:Prices TYPICAL} clearly identifies itself as typical price ...
{I:Typical} explaines itself only from a look at the source, okay in
most case the price is the standard variable, but I still prefer my
{I:Prices whatever}.
> 
> Remember that you can use defaults, so you don't have to type the whole
> set of series, as you did.

Yes, sure, but this is only true for Prices! ... 

> 
> 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. 

full agreement  ... !!!!

> 
> 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.