Errors, bugs, questions - page 1136
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
That's right, it has to be, otherwise what's the point of specifying
instead of
A* B::a = new A;
Constructor A is not static, trying to call it will naturally cause an error:
The const constraint is imposed by the external function and it is its right, but it has no right to impose constraints on the architecture of third-party objects.
Explain then what sense you put by specifying below const - just to be?
Explain then what point are you making by specifying below const - just to be?
Constructor A is not static, trying to call it will naturally cause an error:
This is actually a valid initialization. Static in a class has nothing to do with the object which is static.
And the fact that it doesn't compile really looks like a bug.
Fleder, thanks for the clarification! Do the authors of the project keep a changelog on MetaEditor and the MQL language?
Fleder, thanks for the clarification! Do the authors of the project keep a changelog on MetaEditor and the MQL language?
So the question is, why can't I use standard storage algorithms just because I can't access the damn const? !!!!
Announcement
doesn't mean that class A has to have only const methods. It only means that in f() itself only const methods can be calledThis is actually the correct initialisation. A statik in a class has nothing to do with an object that is a statik.
And the fact that it doesn't compile really looks like a bug.