Errors, bugs, questions - page 3020
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
If it is initialised, then why does the execution
error 4009
ERR_NOTINITIALIZED_STRING
4009
Uninitialized string
This is a matter of terminology.
That's not the problem, it's the fact that this code returns 4 and should return 0.
This just means that -1 and 0 have the same result. The same result will probably give INT_MAX and something else.
Knowing/knowing some of the features of the regular functions is fine.
It's ok to know/know some features of regular functions.Of course. Especially when the feature is a bug ))
Well and unequivocally add to the branch"Features of mql5language..."
It just means that -1 and 0 have the same result.
If you think this is logical and correct, I think it makes you wonder if your logic is logical
Of course. Especially when the feature is a bug ))
Well and definitely add to the branch"Peculiarities of mql5language...".
Tweak documentation a bit and it's no longer a bug.
If you think it is logical and correct, I think this is a reason to think about the logic of your logic.
Philosophy is far from practice.
+1 is unnecessary because a clean copy (without terminating null characters) is required. If you want to prove it is not a bug, you need arguments
requires a clean copy (no terminating null characters)
This is a very bearded design.
WZ
Tweak the documentation a bit and it's no longer a bug.
Philosophy is far from practice.
And how will the practitioner explain such a contradictory result to the theorists:
Result: 4:0
Expectation: 0:0
Or will they correct documentation a bit too? Well, not to fix bugs after all!
My explanation is simple: there is a bug in one of these standard functions - and I even know which one
And how would a practitioner explain such a result to a theorist?
My explanation is simple: one of these functions has a bug - and I even know which one.
The bug is a discrepancy between these two functions, not their result, because it's just a matter of documentation what to output when count=0.