You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Don't tell me that it was just too troublesome to follow the link and actually read the explanation?
I'm having this issue when T is type bool. But actually isn't an implicit conversion. it shouldn't get into "else" condition.
I'm having this issue when T is type bool. But actually isn't an implicit conversion. it shouldn't get into "else" condition.
Yes because it's not resolved at compile time. Suggestion:
Yes because it's not resolved at compile time. Suggestion:
doesn't work, because T includes bool type. it gives the error "function already defined".
Yeah. Looks like you have to expand it to all specific types that you want to support.
Defeats the purpose of a template somewhat, but better than nothing.
What you want is Partial Template Specialization, which MTx does not have.
I'm having this issue when T is type bool. But actually isn't an implicit conversion. it shouldn't get into "else" condition.
Then there is nothing left then to accept MTx doesn't support Partial Template Specialization.
As a "workaround" I don't use bool's for variables that calls generic templates. Instead I use int. And you can assign "true" and "false" to int variables as well and evaluate int variables as if they were booleans. So, other then strong data-typing, semantically there is not much lost.
It may look dirty, but it's the most elegant solution I could think of without sacrificing the use of generic functionality.
Then there is nothing left then to accept MTx doesn't support Partial Template Specialization.
As a "workaround" I don't use bool's for variables that calls generic templates. Instead I use int. And you can assign "true" and "false" to int variables as well and evaluate int variables as if they were booleans. So, other then strong data-typing, semantically there is not much lost.
It may look dirty, but it's the most elegant solution I could think of without sacrificing the use of generic functionality.
Nope, it has actually been fixed. - The problem was the occurance order of signatures. - if the bool type was specified before the template, it would have worked. - This bug has been fixed, actually.
Today you can have exact type signatures and a template next to each other, and the template will only match, if the exact type is not provided. - Though, only possible, if the template is function specific and not struct/class defined scope.
EDIT:
Referring to this post: https://www.mql5.com/en/forum/171214/page2#comment_26231332
Example: