Re: [GT] Problem with display_indicator/EMA/revision 599

[Raphael Hertzog <raphael AT geniustrader.org>]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2008, Weigert, Thomas wrote:
> Albeit "because I'm lazy and don't wanna type it" appears not to be a
> good reason to make scripts inconsistent and harder to understand (not
> KISS), it is not worth the argument.

That's true. The typing of options is not a good reason.. if only Joao
could use Linux he could create command aliases to save his typing. :)

On the other hand, the defaults I selected are not totally inconsistent:
in display_* and graphic I care about the "display", how many lines I get
and how many candles I get.

In backtest-* and scan, the output is not directly proportional to the
number of items and as such there's no reason to use an arbitrary number
of items instead of an arbitrary time period.

So count me with Joao in this case.

> I am not in favor of changing graphics to a default that is based on
> periods as in non-tick based use one cares about seeing time periods, so
> a default based on a constant period is preferred (e.g., 3 months) if
> you think 2 years is too much.

The time period needs to be adjusted for each timeframe... the number of
items doesn't. So until you come up with code to auto-adjust the default
period length, I suggest you keep the default number of items.

> I think the best way to resolve this would be a config option as this
> debate seems to be caused by how GT is used, and that will differ
> between users...

That's surely an option as well.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com

Freexian : des développeurs Debian au service des entreprises
http://www.freexian.com