MetaTrader 4 Build 529 beta released with new compiler - page 33
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
By the way, several posts have already poked me with this UAC thing. For the record, help from Microsoft:
As long as you sit with UAC disabled and under the admin, you personally don't see a problem. But we do, as we have millions of terminals installed that are already having problems due to permission restrictions.
Understanding where and how programs are now allowed to write to Windows will come to you as soon as you start distributing your software around the world.
The hashes in directory names will not be changed - all this works similarly in MT5. We deliberately keep both platforms as unified as possible.
As long as you are sitting with UAC disabled and under the admin, you personally don't see any problems. But we do, because we have millions of terminals installed which already have problems due to permission restrictions.
Understanding where and how programs are now allowed to write to Windows will come to you as soon as you start distributing your software around the world.
The hashes in the directory names will not be changed - this all works the same way for MT5. We deliberately keep both platforms as unified as possible.
I see, thank you.
Is it possible to make simultaneous access to both local and shared folders and files? I mean so that I can see both local folders and files in the navigator as well as shared ones. So that after compilation, the executable file is located in the same folder as the source and the terminal can see them. Then the end user doesn't actually need to know where is that file, their terminal sees these files and works with them, and the programmer knows where are the sources and easily works with them, although they are physically located both in the shared and the local folder. Then for each terminal, it will be possible to create "a different order" - something is in the local folders of the terminal and only those terminals, which have these files, can see it, and something is in shared folders - and these files can be seen by all terminals at once. ME, on the other hand, sees both shared and local folders, which in his navigator can simply open, but when compiling it will put the executable in the folder of the source.
???
artmedia70:
....
ME, on the other hand, sees both shared and local folders, which in its navigator can simply be opened, but when compiling it will put the executable in the source folder.
This is where the problem with terminal versions might be. Better to configure the target location as appropriate.
Or (I would do so) at compile time add suffix to filename with compiler version. Like MACross.b509.ex4 Yes, the name is lengthened, but it is informative and very universally solves the problems with versions of terminals.
artmedia70:
...so don't be a bully. All right?
That's just the problem with versions of terminals may be. It's better to set up the target location according to circumstances.
Or (I would do so) at compile time add the suffix of compiler version to the filename. Like MACross.b509.ex4 Yes, the name is lengthened, but it is informative and very universally solves the problems with versions of terminals.
It's already quite problematic to keep multiple versions of the terminal - they all update themselves after updating one of them.
I don't think it's worth building on this.
But a common folder for sources would be useful, especially taking into account #ifdef and possibility to write universal (4-5) libraries.
Deal. :)
Now the compiler, if there are unused functions, does not give a warning that there are and will be excluded from the executable. Is it going to stay like that?
Now there are warnings about unused variables (very handy by the way, thanks).
Now the compiler, if there are unused functions, does not give a warning that there are and will be excluded from the executable. Will it stay that way?
Yes, it will.
Given the active use of libraries, you can no longer issue such messages. So many functions may be unused. Of course, all unused functions are removed.
It is already quite problematic to keep multiple versions of the terminal - they all update themselves after updating one of them.
I don't think we should count on that.
But a shared folder for sources would be useful, especially considering #ifdef and possibility to write universal (4-5) libraries.
However, it is no longer possible to change the values of the external variables that were originally assigned to them during the execution of the programme, is it?
That's not very convenient. I'll have to create another one...