Errors, bugs, questions - page 2891
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
This may be when the compiler objectively has no information:
i.e. f() may have initialized i or may not. And in this case the C++ compiler gives a warning, but the MQL one does not.
In C++ the addresses of memory cells are not hidden, that's why the variable is initialized with rubbish.
In short, always initialise the variables and you won't get a headache.In Mql the addresses of memory cells are hidden and are not accessible. This is how the Mql developer messed up the compiler ))
Yes, but before the first iteration the j variable is not initialized yet, which is what the compiler swears at.
If you don't use this variable or put the assignment i=j down in the loop body, which would be identical to the execution of the first option, there will be no warnings. The compiler doesn't check the logic of the loop and the execution sequence, it checks the syntax from top to bottom, I think so, I don't know for sure)
fxsaber:
And in other situations.
hitting reply instead is rocking the terminal - a great innovation
you press reply instead, you download the terminal - a great innovation.
It's all the same thing... And with the question for which I almost got nailed here (in the same drop-down menu wallet and unread topics - just twin brothers), and with yours, and yet (I do not know how anyone) I hang such ... "thing."
That's what to do with this inscription? Nowhere any link to view who is asked and why, no (perhaps it lies in the wallet, but I did not look there).
The very persistent impression is that all these "wonderful" changes to the site are being made by one person.... And personally for himself. Exactly the way he thinks he needs it for himself. And he doesn't give a damn about our opinion...
That's what to do with this inscription?
WhenREASON_ACCOUNT is changed, it was expected to receive the previous account and terminate work with it, logically, but no, if the account has changed, we receive a new number in the deinit at REASON_ACCOUNT.
Logically, the program should finish working with the current data and send the new data when making a new call and not change the data in the process...
WhenREASON_ACCOUNT is changed, it was expected to receive the previous account and terminate work with it, logically, but no, if the account has changed, we receive a new number in the deinit at REASON_ACCOUNT.
The program should logically complete work with the current data and pass the new data when making a new call, without changing the data in the process...
Here is code demonstrating incorrect behavior
Result
WhenREASON_ACCOUNT is changed, it was expected to receive the previous account and terminate work with it, logically, but no, if the account has changed, we receive a new number in the deinit at REASON_ACCOUNT.
The program should logically finish working with the current data and send the new data when making a new call, and not change the data in the process...
This is not an error and therefore the behaviour will not change. Just consider this peculiarity.