Errors, bugs, questions - page 1575
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
Show how the tab with optimization results table looks like
For example like this (Balance + max Recovery Factor) :
i.e. one nan is enough to kill the chart (it is dead even if there are no more nanos).
// by the way, from the table we can see that in this case nan is obtained with negative balance (initial deposit 1000000).
Verbatim, when you don't back up your own words with your own evidence.
You even gave a picture of someone else's, although you could have attached your own compilation log (not a picture).
....
If the compiler points to bugs in code, you must believe it.
And if you don't believe it, you may post the compilation log on the forum for parsing. There are errors and compilation time there too.
Ok, here's build 1159 where it compiles in about a second, build 1241 where it compiles in about 20 seconds, and build 1325 where it doesn't compile (errors)
2600 warnings in the old build doesn't confuse you.
Warnings are warnings, bugs are errors. Everyone knows the difference. Everything compiled well until the last build. And if you slip some new rules into the compiler without informing us, is it my code to blame? Why are you shifting the problem from bad to worse?
There are just warnings like "implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string'", "possible loss of data due to 'string'" and "error messages". What do they have to do with errors generated by the latest compiler?
declaration without type
cannot apply function template
comma expected
undeclared identifier
'*' - pointer cannot be used
class type expected
no one of the overloads can be applied to the function call
object pointer expected
semicolon expected
So, it's obvious that some changes in language syntax appeared here, but we're silent. And you're moralizing here about "code quality", etc., diverting the conversation in the usual way.
Warnings are warnings, but errors are errors, everyone knows the difference. Everything compiled well until the last build. And if you secretly introduced some new rules into the compiler without informing us, is my code at fault? Why are you shifting the problem from bad to worse?
There are just warnings like "implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string'", "possible loss of data due to 'string'" and "error messages". What do they have to do with those errors the latest compiler generates anyway?
without type
cannot apply function template
comma expected
undeclared identifier
'*' - pointer cannot be used
class type expected
no one of the overloads can be applied to the function call
object pointer expected
semicolon expected
So, it's obvious that some changes in language syntax appeared here, but we're silent. And you're moralizing here about "code quality", etc., diverting the conversation in the usual way.
if you have 2600 warnings, can you guarantee that all the warnings there are harmless, you've gone through all 2600
as for the head, only a sick head can accept so many warnings and think it's okay to get the right to do so.
Warnings are warnings, but errors are errors, everyone knows the difference. Everything compiled well until the last build. And if you secretly introduced some new rules into the compiler without informing us, is my code at fault? Why are you shifting the problem from bad to worse?
There are just warnings like "implicit conversion from 'number' to 'string'", "possible loss of data due to 'string'" and "error messages". What do they have to do with errors generated by the latest compiler?
declaration without type
cannot to apply function template
comma expected
undeclared identifier
'*' - pointer cannot be used
class type expected
no one of the overloads can be applied to the function call
object pointer expected
semicolon expected
So, it's obvious that some changes in language syntax appeared here, but we're silent. And you're giving us a moral about "code quality" etc., diverting the conversation in the usual way.
Comrade, are you still going to pour shit all over the compiler, or maybe you will at least give me 20 lines of your opus in MQL? I don't know what infernal shit you have in your code. Or, do you think, that all telepaths will be here to listen to you, make sad eyes and agree with all this nonsense?
WHERE IS THE SPECIFIC CODE CAUSING ERRORS?
Warnings are warnings, but errors are errors, everyone knows the difference. Everything compiled until the last build. And if you secretly introduced some new rules into the compiler without informing us, is my code to blame? Why shift the problem from bad to worse?
I'm not interfering. I have 26 years of non-stop programming under my belt.
Warnings are essentially errors if we're talking about the financial sector. And all the thousands of reports about "loss of sign, loss of accuracy, loss on ghosts etc" are a verdict on the quality of the code. Apparently you don't quite understand the implications.
Provide, in a reasonably complete form, the piece of code that the compiler pointed out as a bug, please.
Without that, the whole discussion looks unsightly and unfair.
I found an error in the EA logbook:
unknown command E0
What does it mean?
Renat Fatkhullin:
Please introduce the mechanism of namespaces in MQL5, you know how useful it is, because it does not look so elegant to put crutches in the form of macros to disable identical names in the declarations :)
...
Warnings are essentially errors if we are talking about the financial sector. And all the thousands of reports of "loss of sign, loss of accuracy, loss on ghosts etc" are a verdict on code quality. Apparently you don't quite understand the implications.
...