
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
In general, I wanted to say that bureaucrats do not get into programming at all, financiers do not consider making their own "report" as programming, all this to say that we should distinguish between "user" and "programmer" in ANY PRODUCT... now we are talking about an environment FOR PROGRAMMERS, and "accountants-financiers", as users, are not at all representative in this topic, as well as traders who do not open the meta-editor... who don't give a damn about "Russian" or "NOT Russian"...
Now I get the idea. I can give you an example (already) of my former colleagues. They learn 1C faster because it is in Russian, almost like users.Is it difficult to make a module in which to define everything through "defines"? And there will be programming in russian or other language.
not difficult, here is code which compiles without errors
The question is what is it: uncompleted bugfitch or it will remain so? Because it may happen so that someday developers get their hands to checks and they decide to ban using reserved words in defines :(
it's not hard, here is the code that compiles without errors
The question is what it is: an unfinished bugfix or will it stay like that? Because it may happen so that developers one day get down to checks and decide to forbid using reserved words in defines :(
Technically, a define is a set of certain language tokens used during parsing.
It makes no sense to forbid any tokens or any set of them.
The only important thing is that we must not allow overriding of language statements (if, for, return, ...).
Now we are also thinking of excluding "system" language functions from the list of possible defines.
it's not hard, here is the code that compiles without errors
The question is what it is: an unfinished bugfix or will it stay like that? Because it may happen so that developers one day get down to checks and decide to forbid using reserved words in defines :(
If their preprocessor works by the Sisch principle, no checks will appear.
The only thing I'm not sure is that the Cish preprocessor would give the macro a Russian name. :)
The only important thing is that the language operator cannot be overridden (if, for, return, ...).
of course they cannot be redefined, but they can be "renamed" (in my example, for is renamed by a loop)
Technically, a define is a set of tokens in the language which are inserted during parsing.
It makes no sense to forbid any tokens or any set of them.
The only important thing is that we must not allow overriding of language statements (if, for, return, ...).
We are now thinking of excluding "system" language functions from the list of possible defines.
Forbid - what our citizens are used to.
Prohibit - what our citizens are used to.Not sure what this is about....
>> so you can:
#define если "тут можно написать что угодно и это всё вставиться в код при встрече 'если'"
that's not the way to do it:
#define if "нельзя ключевые слова переопределять - ошибка компиляции"
it might not be possible to do so:#define Sleep "на данный момент так написать можно, но скорее всего это мы прикроем - будет ошибкой при компиляции"
Here's a selection from the help. Anyone who wants it is welcome to try it out ;)
Here's a selection from the help. If you want, you can try it out ;)
And you can also put it into mqh-check, and write the call from the inlude directly into the template,
what are you searching for?