Errors, bugs, questions - page 1749
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
I have made a tick indicator in kodobase. But I can't attach the sources - I press "Attach files", the inscription disappears, but the interface for selecting files does not appear.
maybe an adblock is installed? which blocks all pop-ups
I haven't changed anything. Everything was working before.
When checking out, I press this button
Nothing comes back, except this.
Yes I understand your question. There is a function with a more appropriate signature, but it can't be called because it's protected. Yes, the behaviour is different from Studio: in MKL, there's tighter type control (in this case). I don't know if that should be considered a bug. If you control the type of the argument passed to the function, there is no problem.
The control is rather selective and therefore more inconsistent, which follows from here
class A {
}public:
void f( int ) const {} /*(1)*/
void f( int ) {} /*(2)*/
};
class B : public A {
public:
void f( int ) const {} /*(3)*/
};
void OnStart()
{
B b; //не const B
b.f( 0 ); //(*)
But C++ always does not analyse a base class for a more suitable method if the derived one just has a suitable one.
And MQL - in the previous example, it analyzed the base class for a more suitable method, while in this one it doesn't (here as well as C++ will call B::f/*(3)*/), which means that there is no unified approach
Another example of inconsistent control: C++ finds the following code
void f( int i ) const {}
void f( uint i ) {}
};
void OnStart()
{
A a;
a.f((int)0 );
}
The control is rather selective and therefore more inconsistent, which follows from here
class A {
}public:
void f( int ) const {} /*(1)*/
void f( int ) {} /*(2)*/
};
class B : public A {
public:
void f( int ) const {} /*(3)*/
};
void OnStart()
{
B b; //не const B
b.f( 0 ); //(*)
But C++ always does not analyse a base class for a more suitable method if the derived one has just a suitable one.
And MQL - in the previous example, it analyzed the base class for a more suitable method, while in this one it doesn't (here as well as C++ will call B::f/*(3)*/), which means that there is no unified approach
Another example of inconsistent control: C++ finds the following code
void f( int i ) const {}
void f( uint i ) {}
};
void OnStart()
{
A a;
a.f((int)0 );
}
What C++ compiler do you use? I use gcc and everything passes without any errors
void f( int i ) const {} //1
void f( unsigned int i ) {} //2
};
void OnStart()
{
A a;
a.f((int)0 );
}
(1) or (2). I will now insert the compiler message
That's really a strict control: one method fits better in terms of signature, the other in terms of consistency
This is really a strict control: one method is more suitable by signature, the other by constancy
And it's not clear why you would write such a thing.
Replace f -> operator[], take your recent example - think how to make [] both left and right. Add constancy to taste - then wrap it in a template and you have something similar.
If make const - consider without if
If there cannot be unambiguity, you should at least issue a warning
Replace f -> operator[], take your recent example - think how to make [] both left and right. Add constancy to taste - then wrap it in a template and you'll have something similar.
Which example are we talking about? Could you give not the source, but the final entry that should work?
You should end up with something like this
{
A<int> a;
int b = a[ 0 ];
a[ 0 ] = a[ 1 ];
a[ 1 ] = b;
}
The end result should be something like this
{
A<int> a;
int b = a[ 0 ];
a[ 0 ] = a[ 1 ];
a[ 1 ] = b;
}