Many formulae scalable, but still many cannot. So I want to introduce the concept of 'scalable functions'. E.G. Scalable functions: sum(close,27); mov(close,34,e); Both the above can scale to whatever number of input closing prices you want without INCREASING the number of ARGUMENTS required in the function. An UNSCALABLE example of the above would be: c+ref(c,-1)+ref(c,-2)+ref(c,-3)+ref(c,-4)+ref(c,-5)...etc. Do that make sense? That's a simpler example. What I have discovered, however, is that some other functions look scalable, but are not. The following only have two arguments. E.G. 'Minimum', 'Maximum', 'Multiplication' functions: A 23 B 54 C 2 D 435 E 455 F 34 G 2 max(max(max(max(max(max(23,54),2),435),455),34),2); In Excel, the syntax would simply be 'max(A:G)' So, how about: maxr(data array,periods) - max value over 'range' periods minr(data array,periods) - min value over 'range' periods product(data array,periods) - multiply data array over 'x' periods It doesn't stop there. SteveD

...Max() was not really the best example. I know how the HHV() etc. functions work... The point I am trying to make is that you are limited in how dynamic or variable you can make your formula based on the limit of the number and type of argumnets you can use as input for many of the functions. For example, you CANNOT dynamically generate a value using a moving average to then pass into the ref() function as the number of periods to look forwards or backwards in the chart. Ref() will only take a 'constant', whether that is hard coded directly in the formula or entered by the user at the time of plotting through the Input() function - there can still only be ONE VALUE used by that function from the first date to the last date. Does that make a bit more sense? I was not trying to make a point about the actual Max() or Min() functions. Anyway...I have too much to say but too much to sleep...4:25am Monday morning...dang! SteveD.

Hi Patrick, Haven't logged onto for awhile. Sorry. I'll have a look at the DLL forum and get back to you. On that subject, what is Equis' intension for the MDK with regards to the out-of-box MSFL? Are there any additions to OOB MSFL in the pipeline, or are Equis leaving the growth of the MSFL to occur in DLLs created with the MDK? Does that make sense? Cheers, Steve.