When we run a series of explorations using a batch file, we get the below information. Is it possible to add the name of the exploration as part of the below info?

Once an Analysis is run, it appears that the resulting data may only be copied in its entirety, basically put your cursor on the report and Ctrl-C copies ALL rows and columns.

Standard copy and paste, copies the selected area. If you wished to copy the first 33 rows, highlight the first row, press shift and highlight the 33rd row, then Ctrl-C. Only 33 rows are copied.

Is it possible to add this 'copy my selection' ability? Did I miss some way to already do this?

Plot() opacity / transparency / alpha is now supported in version 6.91.0 for the following Plot styles: styleBar, styleCandle, styleDashed, styleDots, styleLine, styleStaircase, styleArea, styleHistogram

An AI expert chat would be great. Just let us chat for the signals we want as AmiBroker has all the data in it's database. For example: "Add all markets where certain conditions are met to watchlist number 1". Or "Calculate xyz for the markets with the highest ROC". The possibilities are endless.

While AI sounds "cool" and "hip" today, the truth is that LLMs know already that math and formulas are not replaceable. Here is what AI has to say on this matter:

Natural language processing with large language models (LLMs) has made significant strides, but it faces inherent limitations that prevent it from replacing mathematical notation and formulas. The primary reason lies in the ambiguity of natural language compared to the precision of mathematical language. Here are some key points highlighting this issue:

Ambiguity and Precision:

Natural Language: Words and phrases in natural language can often have multiple meanings depending on context. For example, the word "bank" can mean a financial institution or the side of a river. Resolving such ambiguities requires understanding the context, which can be complex and sometimes subjective.

Mathematical Notation: Mathematical symbols and formulas are designed to be unambiguous. A symbol like ∑ (summation) has a single, precise meaning within the context of mathematics. This clarity is crucial for accurately conveying complex ideas without misunderstanding.

Complexity and Length:

Natural Language: Describing complex mathematical operations or relationships in natural language can be verbose and unwieldy. For example, explaining a partial differential equation in words would be much longer and more complicated than the concise symbolic form

Mathematical Notation: Mathematical notation is specifically designed to represent complex concepts succinctly. It allows for the efficient communication of intricate ideas that would be cumbersome to describe in natural language.

Consistency and Standardization:

Natural Language: The use of natural language can vary significantly across different regions, cultures, and individual preferences. This lack of standardization can lead to inconsistent interpretations and confusion.

Mathematical Notation: Mathematical symbols and formulas are standardized globally. This standardization ensures that mathematicians and scientists around the world can understand each other’s work without ambiguity, fostering clear and consistent communication.

Scope of Interpretation:

Natural Language: Interpreting natural language often involves a degree of subjectivity. Different people might interpret the same sentence differently based on their background knowledge, experiences, and perspectives.

Mathematical Notation: Interpretation of mathematical notation is objective. The rules and symbols are universally understood within the mathematical community, leaving little room for subjective interpretation.

Logical Precision:

Natural Language: While natural language can express logical relationships, it often lacks the precision required for rigorous mathematical reasoning. Ambiguities in language can obscure logical dependencies and relationships.

Mathematical Notation: Mathematical notation excels in expressing logical precision. It allows for the clear representation of logical steps, dependencies, and structures necessary for formal proofs and rigorous argumentation.

Learning and Cognitive Load:

Natural Language: Learning to interpret complex mathematical concepts described in natural language can impose a high cognitive load. The learner must parse and interpret verbose descriptions, which can be mentally taxing and prone to error.

Mathematical Notation: While learning mathematical notation itself requires effort, once understood, it significantly reduces cognitive load. It allows for quicker comprehension and manipulation of complex concepts without the need for lengthy descriptions.

In summary, while LLMs can enhance our understanding and use of natural language, they cannot replace the precise, unambiguous, and efficient communication afforded by mathematical notation and formulas. The inherent ambiguities of natural language make it unsuitable for the exacting demands of mathematical expression and reasoning.

@Tomasz, I appreciate the version 6.91 update, which maintains the expanded/collapsed state in the parameters window by linking them to a specific ChartID. This is definitely a significant improvement.

However, in my specific case - especially when developing formulas and experimenting with multiple entries, exits, custom stops, and take profits - I use many sections within the backtest/analysis. Since there is no unique ID for analyses, the new feature does not apply to my work.

I was wondering if it would be possible to add a feature that allows formulas to include an instruction (a new function or a pragma) that generates a unique ID automatically or gives the choice to the user to specify one. This ID would "identify" the analysis uniquely, enabling the same functionality as with the charts. (Ideally, this "code-derived" ID could also be optionally applied to the charts generated by the formula, ensuring that parameter changes in the analyses and the "associated" charts are synchronized).

Additionally, if the program could automatically generate this ID (when specifically requested in the code), it would allow us to apply the same formula to multiple analysis windows without changes in one analysis affecting the others, as happens now. (These changes would not affect existing formulas without user modifications to their existing code).

I understand that this change could be significant, however I believe it would be very useful.
I hope it will be considered if not for version 7.0 for a later update.

Obviously, I don't know the internal complexity of the Amibroker code and maybe this is not possible. In this case, thank you anyway for giving us the opportunity to express our requests/ideas.

I am glad that you like recent changes (at least to some extent).

Parameter window was designed for charts only. The purpose of Parameter window was to allow real time modification of chart parameters and see asynchronous LIVE UPDATE on chart as you move the slider, so you can have immediate visual feedback as to how parameter change affects indicators.
That was unique feature NOT found anywhere else (at least not when I implemented it 20 years ago) and was testament and show off for AmiBroker's chart update speed. It was immediate on 25MHz computers. Today with 5GHz CPUs nobody cares, but back then it was incredible sight.

Parameter window was never meant for Analysis window as there is no way to get "live update" of Analysis results. When it comes to Analysis, it is way more convenient to just have those parameters in the code quickly editable than going back and forth to Parameter window and re-running the Analysis. The whole point of LIVE update is not existing in Analysis window and Parameter window has no purpose.
When you work with Analysis you change the code so many times that working with Parameters window slows you down.

But then... users asked for this Parameter window even if I knew that it made very little sense from my perspective, so it was added and ChartID = 0 was used to distinguish from charts.
It was added on users request, but I strongly believe that parameters window does not make sense for Analysis.

If you wanted to have independent parameters in each Analysis window, parameters would need to be stored alongside with Analysis APX project. Which means that you would need to be FORCED to use and save .APX always. Parameters in Analysis window would need not to be connected with ChartID at all, but they would need to become part of APX project. This is big paradigm shift in the program itself and workflow shift for the users.

@vmonkey - what do you mean exactly with "more friendly to tick data"? In my opinion current format is as good as it only can be. Have different opinion? OK, but you need to precisely describe what you think is "wrong" and how exactly you would like to have it changed. We need technical language and mathematical precision.

Update: since your post seem to come from not understanding current design, I wrote an essay explaining how efficient already existing format is:

Thomasz, when you implement this "copy only the selection" from the analysis window, please show also the number of selected lines at the bottom of the window. Just like Excel does.

@tomasz, FWIW, in the 2016 and later versions, it does show it in the cell to the left of the formula while selecting with the mouse or a key combination the rows/columns:

When I copy the logging window output, using mouse right click -> copy, the copied text ignores the logging layout. For example, I like to display the log output with Time as the first column followed by Message. When I copy-paste the log contents, the pasted content is always formatted as