Thanks for a quick reply, Rosh. This is a great news. And what about my above proposition with enumerative type of trade_event, passed as a reference - is there a chance for such solution? Or maybe even OnTrade(ENUM_TRADE_EVENT_TYPE &event_type, string &symbol) would be better.
By the way - are there any (even rough) estimates whether this will be improved before ATC2012?
Thanks for a quick reply, Rosh. This is a great news. And what about my above proposition with enumerative type of trade_event, passed as a reference - is there a chance for such solution? Or maybe even OnTrade(ENUM_TRADE_EVENT_TYPE &event_type, string &symbol) would be better.
By the way - are there any (even rough) estimates whether this will be improved before ATC2012?
Hello,
Rosh - are there any news on this topic?
I put my vote for this enhancement! It would be very appreciated
I put my vote for this enhancement! It would be very appreciated
- www.mql5.com
- www.mql5.com
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
You agree to website policy and terms of use
Hello MetaQuotes,
Just came up with a suggestion - could you consider ehancing the OnTrade() event handler? The solution that I propose is having OnTrade(ENUM_TRADE_EVENT_TYPE &event_type), which would allow MQL5 programmers to handle particular trade events (e.g. stop loss/take profit modification, pending order execution, new deal etc.) in an elegant and optimally efficient way. Currently every time a trade event happens, we can just "guess" what it could be and try do determine it e.g. by the number of orders/positions/deals, which isn't very flexible and has some other drawbacks as well. I guess that as you can detect a trade event and trigger handling it in OnTrade(), it shouldn't be a big deal to make such an improvement?
Please give your comments on this idea.