Errors, bugs, questions - page 1565
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
You have written about this in the documentation!
There's no way to get the EA to call on every one of those ticks. Is the proof accepted?
Are you serious about this?
When the tick is played, it is hot, and you can call it right away using the SymbolInfoTick request. I wrote about this possibility right away. If you want, you can do Sleep(1) instead of Sleep(10).
I have read it and very carefully. The point is that if Sleep is used in OnTimer, it is impossible to determine when you leave the testing interval. IsStopped (I put it into code at once because of reading documentation) doesn't work at the moment of exit. Whose fault is that?
Why do you need to determine when you exit the testing interval? The tester will detect it for you and stop testing. Did you exactly read the quote I gave you?
Why determine the point at which the test interval is exceeded? The tester will determine this for you and stop testing. Have you accurately read my quote?
Please look at my source code above and point out where it contains a logical error. I don't go out of interval there anywhere.
IsStopped() does not become true while breaking the interval in OnTimer. That's why it's a bummer.
Are you serious?
A tick is played, and you can immediately take it still hot with SymbolInfoTick request. I wrote about this possibility right away. If you want, you can use Sleep(1) instead of Sleep(10).
Seriously! Sleep(1) will not help because there are several ticks per 1 ms on the same FORTS.
Moreover, how will Sleep(1) work at the weekend? There will be millions of idle checks. It's wasteful.
MQL4. TimeToString() and TimeToStr(). In parameters of the 2nd argument, it is written "TIME_MINUTES gets result in form " hh:mm "" and "TIME_SECONDS gets result in form " hh:mm:ss "". This should be corrected to " hh:mi " and " hh:mi:ss ".
mi - there is no such format. There is mm - meaning minutes. And mmm means month.
_MQL4_
intArrayMinimum(const void&array[],// array to search
intcount=WHOLE_ARRAY// number of tested
intstart=0,// index from which the search is started
);
_MQL5_
intArrayMinimum(const void&array[],// array to search
intstart=0,//the index from which the search is started
intcount=WHOLE_ARRAY// number of checked
);
Is this supposed to make life sweet? Brilliant.
Well then the format "yyyyy.mm.dd hh:mi" should be corrected to "yyyyy.mmm.dd hh:mm".
mm - two month digits,
dd - two day signs,
hh - two digits of hours,
mm is two digits of minutes.
But mi is one sign for minutes and one sign for what? I thought it was a cycle index.
So don't make up standards for shortening time formats, please. No need for confusion...