[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 365
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 the b-Positions.mqh file, comment out the line
sorry. commenting means actually deleting it... but why was it there in the first place?
and then in parallel tell me why #property show_confirm is needed ?
sorry. commenting means actually deleting it... but why was it there in the first place?
and then in parallel tell me why #property show_confirm is needed ?
Oleg.
1. All the codes must be executed through SRC
2. It is incorrect to ask such questions "in parallel tell me why do we need #property show_confirm ?" on the forum, as this is help information and is solved via https://docs.mql4.com/ru/basis/preprosessor/compilation.
I.e. before you ask something like this, go through all the possible reference books and textbooks and search the forum. And if after that it is not clear (and I have this happen), then ask a more specific question. (Sorry for the mentoring)
Oleg...
1. All codes must be done through the SRC.
2. It is incorrect to ask such questions "why do you need #property show_confirm ?" on the forum, as it is a help information and is solved by https://docs.mql4.com/ru/basis/preprosessor/compilation
I.e. before you ask such a question, go through all possible reference books and tutorials and search forums. And if you don't understand after that (and it happens to me too), ask a more specific question. (Sorry for the mentoring)
Of course I try to search before I ask, but there is so much information out there that it's hard to understand.
Thank you. I found it at your link.
Of course I try to look before I ask, but there's so much information out there, it's crazy.
Thank you. I found it on your link.
I just need to learn one very simple and convenient method that Metakvots has implemented:
In MetaEditor, put the cursor on a standard variable, function and press F1. You will get contextual help at the bottom. Otherwise, you won't be able to find it. But it's very handy.
You just need to learn one very simple and handy method that Metakvots has implemented:
In MetaEditor, put the cursor on a regular variable, function and press F1 at the bottom, the contextual help will immediately come out. Otherwise, it's hard to find it. But it's very handy.
I learned it here long time ago. thank you. there are only nuances. who would know?! if you select property - it will show the information. but i thought that you need to select#property or even completely#property show_confirm. in the last two variants help Metacvot does not show ANYTHING. :)
I was taught this long time ago. thank you. but there are nuances. who knew?! if i select property - it will show the information. but i thought i should select#property or even completely#property show_confirm. in the last two variants help Metacvot does not show ANYTHING. :)
Well, in programming, as elsewhere, the devil is in the details. But this is all solved by trial and error (water doesn't flow under a rock). In the same way, in trading, for which you are trying, nuance is crucial.
You do not have to select it, just put cursor on the variable. It will figure out what to look for.
Well, in programming, as elsewhere, the devil is in the details. But this is all solved by trial and error (water doesn't flow under a rock). In the same way, in trading, for which you are trying, nuance is crucial.
You don't have to select it, just put the cursor on the variable. The program will figure out what you need to find by itself.
Got it, thanks.
And one last question. Probably out of the blue...
Why does the tester give one result for a week of history, and when you press START again, it gives a completely different result ? floating result ?
parameters are the same. everything is on double
the history is the same.
got it thank you.
And one last question... probably definitely off topic... but maybe...
why does the tester for a week of history give one result and when you press START again it's completely different... floating result ?
parameters are the same. everything is on double
the history is the same.
with the same parameters the result should be the same. It means that the variable value is "floating" somewhere - like in optimisation. Maybe you have a checkmark for optimization on some variable. Remotely, it's hard to say exactly.
there are no ticks.
perhaps the lack of normalisation within the EA gives this effect.
However, when the input parameters tab appears, the optimization itself does not happen.
The tester does something, at the bottom you can see the current number of overshoots (7/62), but on completion in the tabs optimization results, and the optimization graph is Empty!
check mark on the parameter is of course ....
I don't even know which way to think...
there are no ticks.
It is possible that the lack of normalisation within the EA has this effect.
However, when the input parameters tab appears, the optimization itself does not happen.
The tester does something, at the bottom you can see the current number of overshoots (7/62), but on completion in the tabs optimization results, and the optimization graph is Empty!
check mark on the parameter is of course ....
I don't even know which way to think...
Empty values may indicate that the optimization result of a particular parameter is unprofitable - i.e. it's a drain. Try running one of the parameters with Visualisation - and you might see that result.
About Normalisation, I don't think there will be any such effect either, as as long as the values are the same, the mathematical numbers will be exactly the same - hence no change.
About "which way to think" - Sometimes it's better not to think and postpone the question - the idea and thoughts will come a little later. You have to give your brain room to manoeuvre, rest and think without straining.