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
But it can handle that large a function . . . as I explained, change the function type and there is no compilation error for the same size of function . .
So does it mean an int function requires more resources to execute? Maybe then metaquotes can make init, deinit and start to be void so they consume smaller resources.
But it can handle that large a function . . . as I explained, change the function type and there is no compilation error for the same size of function . .
. . . or leave it as an int and leave in the return(0); and do this for all the calls . . .
. . . where ReturnedValue is an int . . . guess what ? no compilation error.
Make you code make sense . . . and hey presto, as if by magic the error goes away, weird eh ?
So does it mean an int function requires more resources to execute? Maybe then metaquotes can make init, deinit and start to be void so they consume smaller resources.
. . . or leave it as an int and leave in the return(0); and do this for all the calls . . .
. . . where ReturnedValue is an int . . . guess what ? no compilation error.
Make you code make sense . . . and hey presto, as if by magic the error goes away, weird eh ?
The int function is also returning 0. Anyway problem solved but as for the error I think its appearing where it shouldn't.
An int function returning 0 should be comparable to a void function so this means there is something.
This means even with void if we were to add more objects it would reach stress point and cause the error again. There we agree?
But it seems you may be right . . .
No, I don't agree.
But it seems you may be right . . .
Now we are on the same page.