
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
As for warnings when compiled "return value of ''order send/select,modify,close'' were corrected by adding (bool dummyResult) previously but now i see you using simply (bool dummy),is it ok for all and every situation or the new (bool dummy) for some specific indicators and situations ?
regards
Dearest MLADEN
As for warnings when compiled "return value of ''order send/select,modify,close'' were corrected by adding (bool dummyResult) previously but now i see you using simply (bool dummy),is it ok for all and every situation or the new (bool dummy) for some specific indicators and situations ?
regards
What is used to really check if order operation(s) are OK is GetLastError() (since it gives much more details than the simple boolean return that the default return from order operations returns) - so, yes it is OK, and then, if more detail for a possible error is needed then, by all means, GetLastError() should be used
(what we will do after 31st January?) :(
WojtekPaul,
How do you mean that?
WojtekPaul,
How do you mean that?
But check this post too : https://www.forex-tsd.com/forum/announcements-forex-press/1811320-forex-tsd-is-going-to-be-terminated/page4#comment_1849089
Usually those warnings are benign.
What is used to really check if order operation(s) are OK is GetLastError() (since it gives much more details than the simple boolean return that the default return from order operations returns) - so, yes it is OK, and then, if more detail for a possible error is needed then, by all means, GetLastError() should be used
Thanks for help guidance.
regards
He meant this : https://www.forex-tsd.com/forum/announcements-forex-press/1811320-forex-tsd-is-going-to-be-terminated
But check this post too : https://www.forex-tsd.com/forum/announcements-forex-press/1811320-forex-tsd-is-going-to-be-terminated/page4#comment_1849089
Mladen,
Thank you for the information. This is / was my one of the most favourable forums, so it is a bad news for me, either. Nevertheless, there are other places with ready made forum and chat features over the net. (I put one example into the "Forex-TSD is going to be terminated..." thread.)
Hello everyone,
I need a coder to put an arrow with alert for this extrategia. Manually this strategy is giving 100% victory.
Below is the link to the strategy.
http://www.binaryoptionsedge.com/topic/1879-high-power-option-2015/page-2#entry108014
Post #29
Obrigado.
Dear Mladen, is it possible that the two following functions:
and
iCustomMa(ma_ema,getPrice(pr_high,Open,Close,High,Low,i),MAPeriod,i,0);(or iCustomMa(ma_ema,iMA(NULL,0,1,0,MODE_SMA,PRICE_HIGH,i),MAPeriod,i,0); )
#define _maWorkBufferx2 2
#define _maWorkBufferx3 3
#define _maWorkBufferx5 5
double iCustomMa(int mode, double price, double length, int i, int instanceNo=0)
{
if (length<=1) return(price);
int r = Bars-i-1;
switch (mode)
{
// ...
case ma_ema : return(iEma(price,length,r,instanceNo));
// ...
default : return(0);
}
}
double workEma[][_maWorkBufferx1];
double iEma(double price, double period, int r, int instanceNo=0)
{
if (ArrayRange(workEma,0)!= Bars) ArrayResize(workEma,Bars);
//
double alpha = 2.0 / (1.0+period);
workEma[r][instanceNo] = workEma[r-1][instanceNo]+alpha*(price-workEma[r-1][instanceNo]);
return(workEma[r][instanceNo]);
}
that iEma works sligthly different from the built-in EMA?
Dear Mladen, is it possible that the two following functions:
and
iCustomMa(ma_ema,getPrice(pr_high,Open,Close,High,Low,i),MAPeriod,i,0);(or iCustomMa(ma_ema,iMA(NULL,0,1,0,MODE_SMA,PRICE_HIGH,i),MAPeriod,i,0); )
#define _maWorkBufferx2 2
#define _maWorkBufferx3 3
#define _maWorkBufferx5 5
double iCustomMa(int mode, double price, double length, int i, int instanceNo=0)
{
if (length<=1) return(price);
int r = Bars-i-1;
switch (mode)
{
// ...
case ma_ema : return(iEma(price,length,r,instanceNo));
// ...
default : return(0);
}
}
double workEma[][_maWorkBufferx1];
double iEma(double price, double period, int r, int instanceNo=0)
{
if (ArrayRange(workEma,0)!= Bars) ArrayResize(workEma,Bars);
//
double alpha = 2.0 / (1.0+period);
workEma[r][instanceNo] = workEma[r-1][instanceNo]+alpha*(price-workEma[r-1][instanceNo]);
return(workEma[r][instanceNo]);
}
that iEma works sligthly different from the built-in EMA?
Loop the iCustomMa() on the whole series, and the results should be the same
PS: that iEma() is obsolete. The new version goes like this (it is not going to change the values, but it is "strict mode proof")
double iEma(double price, double period, int r, int instanceNo=0)
{
if (ArrayRange(workEma,0)!= Bars) ArrayResize(workEma,Bars);
//
workEma[r][instanceNo] = price;
if (r>0 && period>1)
workEma[r][instanceNo] = workEma[r-1][instanceNo]+(2.0/(1.0+period))*(price-workEma[r-1][instanceNo]);
return(workEma[r][instanceNo]);
}
Thanks a lot for your fast reply! Could you please tell me where can
I find the current code of the moving averages:
enum enMaTypes
{
ma_sma, // simple moving average - SMA
ma_ema, // exponential moving average - EMA
ma_dsema, // double smoothed exponential moving average - DSEMA
ma_dema, // double exponential moving average - DEMA
ma_tema, // tripple exponential moving average - TEMA
ma_smma, // smoothed moving average - SMMA
ma_lwma, // linear weighted moving average - LWMA
ma_pwma, // parabolic weighted moving average - PWMA
ma_alxma, // Alexander moving average - ALXMA
ma_vwma, // volume weighted moving average - VWMA
ma_hull, // Hull moving average
ma_tma, // triangular moving average
ma_sine, // sine weighted moving average
ma_linr, // linear regression value
ma_ie2, // IE/2
ma_nlma, // non lag moving average
ma_zlma, // zero lag moving average
ma_lead, // leader exponential moving average
ma_ssm, // super smoother
ma_smoo // smoother
};
As far as I know this is the last list of moving averages available as open code
(other MAs are already in ex4 format).