[ARCHIVE]Any rookie question, so as not to clutter up the forum. Professionals, don't pass it by. Can't go anywhere without you - 5. - page 253

 
alsu:
By the way, they don't. Oscillatory indulators, on the contrary, usually give outperforming signals. The problem is that 50% of them are false.)


Well, 50% without them is just like without anything, so what for do we need them! My Expert Advisor calculates the quote itself without indicators and solves 65% of trades, the rest is done by MM, trawl, SL and TP, and it closes 80% of trades in profit. :))
 
borilunad:

I don't use them either, they are 50% without them, so what for do we need them? My Expert Advisor checks the quote itself without indicators and releases 65% of trades, the rest is done by MM, trawl, SL and TP and 80% of trades are closed in profit. :))


Boris, who told you I was the one talking about oscillators?

And, by the way, I wouldn't raise this question here, but there are pro traders I know who use oscillators, only on TFs from one hour and above, and not in the same way as everyone else, but in their own way. I do not use them myself, since they are not my approach.

 

This is the first time I've seen such a design:

while (true)
   { 
     // что-то делаем..
   }

Why do that? When will the cycle be over? And how does the expert know that TRU?

 
hoz:

This is the first time I've seen such a design:

Why do that? When will the cycle be over? And how does the expert know that TRU?


if it is a dynamic parameter, why not ?

As long as the price ratio to Winnie the Pooh's ears is correct....

 
zoritch:


if it's a dynamic parameter, why not ?

As long as the ratio of price to Winnie the Pooh's ears is correct....


What does this have to do with a dynamic parameter? The conditions are essentially all dynamic to some degree. If one is, the other is.

But if a condition is given, if the variable is so-and-so equals so-and-so... then... do something, or if there is so-and-so, then do so-and-so, then everything makes sense.

But here:

while (true)
   { 
     // что-то делаем..
   }
Where did the TRU come from ?
 
Imagine you need to organise a perpetual cycle, what would you do?
 
hoz:


What does this have to do with the dynamic parameter? The conditions are essentially all dynamic to some degree. If one is, the other is.

But if a condition is given, if a variable is so-and-so, equals so-and-so, or if there is so-and-so, we do so-and-so, then it makes sense.

But here:

Where did the TRU come from ?

Usually such a construction is used when there are many different conditions on which a loop has to be completed, but their execution is non-deterministic.

Example to illustrate the logic: I want the program to make dough indefinitely (i.e. while(true) - the condition is always true), but also to stop if a) I'm bursting from eating black caviar, b) I fly to Mars, c) I crash the world markets (in which case we put break).

This may be rewritten differently, for example, for(;;), which is equivalent to while(true). Or you can put all the stopping conditions directly into while(i.e., here), but it is inconvenient when there are a lot of conditions and they branch.

 
Folks, previously in the editor when you hover over a reserved word and press f1 a window would open at the bottom with a description of the function, now I don't have this. What could be the problem ?
 
Desead:
Folks, previously in the editor when you hover over a reserved word and press f1 a window would open at the bottom with a description of the function, now I don't have this. What could be the problem ?

You don't just hover, you click on the word, and in the middle)
 
alsu:

you don't just point, but click on the word, and in the middle)

without getting into a discussion of what and where to click, I'll put it simply - it used to work and now it doesn't. has anyone experienced this ?
Reason: