cegis
235 posts
msg #31364
- Ignore cegis |
3/10/2004 8:43:32 PM
Marc,
I believe TxTrapper is right - you need to replace "within the past 0 days" with "0 days ago" after BOTH Fast Line *AND* Slow Line MACD clauses.
I gotto run now. I'll post a corrected filter tomorrow...
C
|
GI30065
7 posts
msg #31373
- Ignore GI30065 |
3/11/2004 5:21:12 AM
Ok cegis, I don't follow quite well.
But I DO TRUST you :-)
I will try the new filter as well.
Thx.
Regards,
Marc.
|
GI30065
7 posts
msg #31374
- Ignore GI30065 |
3/11/2004 5:29:15 AM
I almost forgot,
Thank you, txtrapper, for you support in this discussion.
I saw already soooo many posts of you, :-)))))
Regards,
Marc.
|
cegis
235 posts
msg #31377
- Ignore cegis |
3/11/2004 10:31:13 AM
Marc,
Here's the corrected version (as promised :->):
The only change I made was to add "3 days ago" to the MACD fast line clause in the days() function. My original version was comparing the slow line "3 days ago" to the fast line "today". This version compares them on the same date. (One "side effect", though, is the value of "da" is three days less than the actual number of days prior to today that the cross too place. No real big deal, just something to mention...)
From what I can tell - and read in the online help - "crossed above ... within the past __ days" is valid syntax for what we're trying to do, so I left that part of the filter alone.
Now, just to get those prices!
HTH,
C
|
GI30065
7 posts
msg #31380
- Ignore GI30065 |
3/11/2004 1:31:28 PM
Wouwwwwww,
Thx cegis.
Gonne do some testing wright now !
Regards,
Marc.
|