We can no longer control the placement of objects on the graph "vertically" - page 2

New comment
 
stringo >>:

1. Можно, конечно, обсуждать недокументированные возможности. И это неоднократно делалось. Но для того, чтобы находить решения. А не для того, чтобы изменить недокументированное поведение.

2. Нам пришло гораздо больше просьб (больше, чем участников этой дискуссии) с тем, чтобы изменить порядок отрисовки объектов. Да, в пятёрке мы сделали простой и естественный порядок по времени создания объекта (однако, это тоже недокументировано). И что нам теперь делать?

3. А ничего не делать! Так как при нынешней сортировке можно просто пересоздать группу объектов, что было невозможно при сортировке по именам.

It seemed to me, I am afraid to be mistaken :), but "most beggars" most likely cared about the logic of their own "prog-uncleaner" and they "absolutely don't care" about presence of some other objects.

There is a golden rule when performing deinit() - delete objects.

Sometimes they "code" so much that they delete absolutely everything...

;)

 
stringo писал(а) >>

2. We've had many more requests (more than participants in this discussion) to change the order in which objects are rendered. Yes, in Five we did a simple and natural order by object creation time (however, this is also undocumented). So what do we do now?

Excuse me, has it been taken into account from whom these requests came?

If you read the forum - there are a lot of people who want the indicators to be calculated in Expert Advisors. There are much more of them than of those who understand that they should not do this. You can find a lot of similar ones.

 
stringo писал(а) >>

3. and do nothing! Because with the current sorting, you can simply recreate the group of objects, which was not possible with sorting by name.


I seem to have missed something very serious...

 
Sorry again, that sentence could only come from complete lamers... yakodiakodiakodu yakodiakodu yakodiakodu yakodiakodu yakodiakodu oops! And why was it that I wrote the lines of code in that order... and they're drawn in the wrong order at all....
 

I wonder, what is the logic behind sorting "by time"? I go back in time and create an object in the past with a view to the future... I don't need the time when the object was created, I need the object name and its coordinates.

 

No matter how you look at it, the graphic part of the system is very important. It is an important aspect of product promotion and competitiveness. In spite of my bad temper, I have to admit that the graphical part of MT does work, and not badly. And I think a big part of MT's success is due to it.

Where I'm going with this, well, I'm all for Z-order and Alpha.

They are basic elements, I dare say.

:)

 


stringo писал(а) >>

Sorry, I seem to have missed something important too? I'm not quite sure what your points are in response to my suggestions? doesn't seem to be....

I'll try to answer them as your stand-alone points.

1. One can, of course, discuss undocumented features. And this has been done many times. But in order to find solutions. Not to change undocumented behaviour.

I just offered for discussion three different variants, each of which is better (imho) than your current solution. As for undocumented, it's a stone to your own head. If you create objects on graphics, it means you do it in any order - well, document this order ;)


2. We have received many more requests (more than participants in this discussion) to change the order in which objects are drawn.

Unfortunately, we all do not know either that such requests were, or their number, or how many participants offered them (agree 100 requests from 100 people, it's not the same as one person asks a hundred times in a row). If you can, what were these requests and why did you accept their arguments?


Yes, in Five we've done a simple and natural ordering by object creation time (however, this too is undocumented). So what do we do now?

Well at least document it, because it is one of the main features of GUI.

The arguments about it being "simple" are understandable, but that it's natural are too questionable. It's natural, if a developer is solving the problem of "I have 100 objects, I need HOW to place them". But if he's thinking about that other developer, who should be thinking about the other user\trader, he's at least puzzled (as I was puzzled) by the behavior of the terminal which turns the substrate for the texts into their "tyres".

3. do nothing! Because with current sorting you can simply recreate a group of objects, which was impossible with sorting by name.

For you, it's simple - to recreate. What if I develop an interface which dynamically adapts to the situation on the graphics? For example, if there is an open position - I need at least to display the information on it - the object for that must be there! But here the Expert Advisor has closed the position and I don't need it anymore. But in a second a buy signal appears....

Example from another area of interface incompleteness: because you can not set the invisibility of the object I have to drive them to the coordinates of Y = 32000 ;)


And now, what are we arguing about? I, and many other forum users think that your current undocumented way of object allocation is inconvenient. Please explain at least with similar arguments your "natural" position and explain why it's more correct than ours, what are the advantages of recreating all the objects before sorting by the same object name when displaying them. If you manage to convince us, we'll have nothing to talk about. If not, we'll keep asking you to make all objects vertically manageable.

Understand, all this is not done in order to make you look bad for incompetent programmers. You have made an excellent platform, which I personally do not see anything equal to yet. You just have some bugs in it which you haven't got a chance to fix yet. But I want very much that 5 was better than 4, so at least do not break that good or familiar that was there (sorting by name) ;)

 

addendum

3. А ничего не делать! Так как при нынешней сортировке можно просто пересоздать группу объектов, что было невозможно при сортировке по именам.

Why can't it be done in 4? It can be done very easily and the result will be exactly the same as before their removal if the object names are not changed.

But in current situation you can't guarantee the identity of the drawing ;) You've already made a great OnChartEvent. When you initially create objects in Inite, the order will always be the same. But if you start to delete objects, you can easily get into a CHARTEVENT_OBJECT_DELETE and CHARTEVENT_OBJECT_CREATE. Because at the moment of initialization, handler OnChartEvent doesn't work yet, but when you recreate it, it will "turn a blind eye" to each your removal or creation and only MathRand knows in what order they will end up :)

 

ForexTools, you say some scary things about the new terminal...

It makes me want to get out of here and do some sklice training on Planet Avalanche...

You can't do that, I guess.

 
Oper >>:

ForexTools,вы какие-то прям страшные вещи говорите про новый терминал...

Нельзя так,наверное.

It's nothing - just a regular revision of the beta version. The developers cannot foresee everything. Until they or one of us stumble upon inadequate terminal behavior and guess what's wrong. The only thing that surprises me is their painful reaction to any attempts to show them that they have done something not quite the way we want it :)
1234567
New comment
Reason: