Make a certification service for programmers ... - page 4

New comment
 
Integer:
How do you guys even jibe here? Just a request appears and there are already 10 people ready to do the job without looking.
a jobe is a jobe )))))
 
Integer:
How do you guys even jibe here? Just a request appears and there are already 10 people ready to complete the task without looking.
Bullshit, I'm still getting people added to the "problem solved" request.
 
TheXpert:
Bullshit, I still get people added to the "problem solved" application.
The problem can be solved very simply. If the programmer's account is charged 1 cent for posting the request.
 
sandex:

Even if you choose this, you may also get stuck. In general, this function is rather ambiguous and you can get stuck no matter how you use it,

I was surprised, by the way, that the tutorial suggests direct overshoot when using stops and more than one Expert Advisor at a time.


so there's not much difference, both are wrong. By the way, I was surprised that the textbook suggests the direct overrun.

 
snowman:

This should all be clarified in the course of accepting a job, not during execution or, even worse, not when it is due.)


It was originally written, when an order triggers, the stoploss is pulled up behind the price. So I did. There were, of course, leading questions such as:

Does the stop loss immediately follow the price or is it moved to Breakeven first, i.e. is it immediately pulled behind the price?

I always write according to the assignment, I do not read my mind. There is just a category of customers who are always something unsatisfied, or think they can ask for additional improvements on top of the job.

Integer:
What happened next? How did it end? I think I got the job... but as you can see, it went somewhere else.
Gave up the assignment.
 
MrGold166:

Actually there is not much difference, both are wrong. By the way, I was surprised that the textbook suggests direct overshoot.

There are no correct variants there at all.
 
Show me the correct version according to you and I'll show you how wrong it is.
 
sandex:

Show me the correct option in your opinion and I will show you how wrong it is.

I would very much like to know what's wrong with this option ???

for(i=OrdersTotal()-1; i>=0; i--)
{
if(OrderSelect(i,SELECT_BY_POS))
{
 
VOLDEMAR:

I would very much like to know what's wrong with this option ???

Because OrderSelect has one parameter.

And it is not the order number, but its ticket.

 
Contender:

Because OrderSelect has one parameter.

And it is not the order number, but its ticket.

this is mql4 ...
12345678
New comment
Reason: