Errors, bugs, questions - page 535

[x572intraday]

marketeer:
Everything is mapped according to the code.

Brilliant.

It's just a matter of figuring out if the code meets the technical definition of fractals. Well, I don't see at least five mandatory consecutive bars to form fractals in the areas highlighted with red rectangles in one of my previous posts. I must be the only one having an eclipse....

Is everyone happy with everything and understandable? Well, somebody share the valerian!

...Anyway, okay. If the side-bars don't have to form a strict pyramid, then it's OK, let's move on.

[Anatoli Kazharski]

x100intraday:

Brilliant.

It's just a matter of figuring out if the code meets the technical definition of fractals. Well, I don't see at least five mandatory consecutive bars to form fractals in the areas highlighted with red rectangles in one of my previous posts. I must be the only one having an eclipse....

Is everyone happy with everything and understandable? So can someone please share the valerian!

...Anyway, okay. If the side-bars don't have to form a strict pyramid, then it's OK, let's move on.

And why do you need conformity exactly in the indicators provided. Build fractals according to your own conditions. Try to experiment with fractals of 3, 5, or 7 bars. With or without strict correspondence. Maybe, even a better variant will be found. )))

[x572intraday]

The illustration where the top and bottom fractals are mixed up on the same chart is confusing. But in fact, when viewed individually, everything is respected.

[x572intraday]

tol64:
And why would you want a match exactly in the indicators provided. Build fractals according to your own conditions. Try to experiment with fractals of 3, 5, 7 bars. With or without strict correspondence. Maybe, even a better variant will be found. )))

Hmmm! To supplant Williams himself? Thanks for the idea. I will become more correct than the classics of TA and will show my portrait among others in all the world schools of trading... Although I don't aspire to do it on purpose.

[Stanislav Korotky]

x100intraday:
The illustration where the top and bottom fractals are mixed up on the same chart is confusing. But in fact, when viewed individually, everything is respected.

And who banned their simultaneous appearance? Even if you make the condition more strict, so that each successive bar has an extremum greater or lesser than the preceding one, and not only the central one, there may still be situations when both fractals appear on the same bar. Add a condition that when both conditions are met, neither fractal is placed.

[---]

mql5:
You need to look at the code.
If the array initially had size 100 and was filled with valid values, then reduced and again increased to 100, it might well be that the pointers remained valid.

Got it. Here's the code.

parameter c was =0.

//------------------------------------------------------------------    Resize
void Resize(int n) // изменяем число элементов
{
  int c=ArraySize(m_item); // размер текущего массива // при тесте был с=0
  for (int i=n; i<c; i++) if (CheckPointer(m_item[i])==POINTER_DYNAMIC) { delete m_item[i]; m_item[i]=NULL; } // чистим лишние 
  ArrayResize(m_item, n); // изменили число
  for (int i=c; i<n; i++) m_item[i]=NULL;  // новые указаьели обнулили // эту строку добавил специально, 
  for (int i=0; i<n; i++) if (CheckPointer(m_item[i])==POINTER_INVALID) m_item[i]=new eSymbol; // если не создан, то создаем // так как CheckPointer не работал
}

but in principle, I'd rather force NULL on new pointers, so as not to get caught up in such trivial things in the future

[Anatoli Kazharski]

The latest update on the new build:

And the terminal displays:

[Slava]

tol64:

The latest update on the new build:

And the terminal displays:

519 is the latest official build. Apparently, the hand on the key missed the mark. Corrected it in the news, thanks.

[Anatoli Kazharski]

stringo:
519 is the latest official build. Apparently, the hand on the key missed the mark. Corrected it in the news, thanks.

It happens.)) In this case, it's okay, as it's not launching a nuclear bomb.))

[Sergey Gritsay]

tol64:
It happens.)) In this case it's normal, as it's not launching a nuclear bomb.))

I don't know about the bomb, but on one computer it updated without any problems and on the second one it went viral