Why not put the input parameters in the structure? - page 2
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
So refers, to write this whole heap of parameters, it would be enough to define the structure and put it in the input parameters.
That's not what this thread is about, as it mentions the mqh-file. And defining the structure is the same as writing all the fields. I.e. it's the same thing.
That's not what this thread is about, as it mentions an mqh-file. And defining the structure is the same as writing all the fields. In other words, it's the same thing.
How is it not? First line, first post:
There is a problem withpassing input parameters to the EA
subject line
Why not put the input parameters in a structure?
And defining the structure is the same as writing all the fields. I.e. it is the same thing.
What if it's an array of structures?
Then set the parameters with a file.
This is the way it is done now. At the same time, the Expert Advisor comes with an "Editor" of such a file in the form of a DLL, which displays a window with tabbed parameters.
That is, everything is possible. No one argues with that. Another thing is that if it was in the form of ready-made functionality in the terminal, it would be great.
No one argues. Another thing is that it would be great if it were a ready function in the terminal.
If as an additional option, rather than a replacement for existing instances, then you are welcome.
But no one will do it, because it takes a couple of minutes to convert inputs to the right kind of container as needed by TC.
And "an array of structures" is also made a bit more complicated by generating code from json, for example.
This is the way it is done now. At the same time, the Expert Advisor comes with an "Editor" of such a file in the form of a DLL, which displays a window with tabbed parameters.
But no one will do it, because it takes a couple of minutes to convert the inputs to the right kind of container, as TC wants.
Articles on custom GUI clearly says that it's possible to make such editor without DLL, and it's an exit to Market.
The articles on custom GUI clearly say that you can make such an editor without a DLL, and that's an exit to the Market.
Here I give a plus. Put parameters in a file and write a dialog box that might easily connect to any Expert Advisor and display parameters as desired.
So it's not surprising to see two windows for the settings: standard and new? In my opinion, this is not normal. The DLL variant has exactly the same problem. But the dialog box in MFC is written much faster than in MQL.