Errors, bugs, questions - page 415

New comment
 
MONTEGRO:

Build 466, WinXP SP3. Nothing has changed. Optimizer doesn't work normally. Moreover, the more running agents, the faster comes the "hang" of the optimizer.

At the moment I see several more bugs in the terminal, but I won't write about any of them until the optimizer works properly.





similarly !

 
Im_hungry:

Let me ask a compromising question - well, very interesting,

about the spy subroutine that sends the .eh files from the terminal. -....

I discussed the topic with one programmer (and if there was only one),

that in terminals, especially in mt4 (someone confessed) and not necessarily in mt5

there is a subroutine or some other .... which monitors and forwards the exes,

i don't expect any sincere replies, but i was wondering if anyone actually knows

what it is and why some people are afraid of losing their EA data,

TYPE - they won't get rich in peace :-_ )

:-)


imagine there's a good hacker

and post the results on the internet?

Can you imagine the scandal that would happen?

Do you think that the METAQUOTES company will survive?

Do you know how businesses feel about it - I mean foreigners - and not just them, it would be the end of METAQUOTES!!!

You think METAQUOTES are suicidal to build spyware into the terminal!

And most importantly, for what? To steal someone else's untalented codes?


You understand there are other skilled programmers in the world...

...who can find these things.

---

Now, let's be logical.

 
Interesting:

Collecting statistics on the history of a single trader (or a large number of traders) for a certain period of time, the broker can easily analyze the trades and understand that, for example, the "client" uses a martin with doubling and the ability to set up to 10 knees.

Knowing this, some brokers (there is no need to lump them all under one roof) often have a desire to rid the trader of super profits and illusions on the account of GRAILS.

If the "kitchen" style of trading does not seem too dangerous (for them, of course) a particular strategy does not really matter. Such an account will simply be hedged at the expense of other clients or company funds.

That's the closest thing to the truth, and you shouldn't swim in the idea

of being conned, the important thing is to stick to the scheme of things,

and the rest is up to them, and the "kitchen" is their concern,

and no one's going to get into a computer for one in a million, and as for the rest

compromising rumors from websites and left-wing forums.

Just scaring the people probably, THANK YOU for the helpful clarification. Good luck!

 

Good afternoon!

Bild 466, when booting the Windows (XP SP2 or Windows 7 (64) )

metatester.exe is constantly showing up in task manager

The question arises why its autostart ???

Thank you!

 
Im_hungry:

metatester.exe is constantly showing up in task manager


Have you created remote agent services using agent manager?

Please check the list of Windows services for "MetaTester-<N>".

 
alexvd:

Perhaps you created remote agent services using agent manager?

Please check the Windows service list for services like "MetaTester-<N>"

Thank you, let's see...
 

This is a simple script that generates a compile-time error:

bool bool_var=false;
bool Test(void)
  {
   switch(bool_var)
     {
      case  true: return(true);
      case false: return(false);
     }
  }
void OnStart()
  {
   Test();
  }
Is it supposed to do that?
 
Yedelkin:

This is a simple script that generates a compile-time error:

Is it supposed to do that?

I think it should be like this (both versions work, but I think the second one is more correct).

//Вариант №1

bool bool_var=false;
bool Test(void)
  {
   switch(bool_var)
     {
      case  true: return(true); break;
      case false: return(false); break;
      default:return(false); break;
     }
  }
void OnStart()
  {
   Test();
  }

//Вариант №2

bool bool_var=false;
bool Test(void)
  {
   switch(bool_var)
     {
      case  true: return(true); break;
      case false: return(false); break;
      default:return(false);
     }
  }
void OnStart()
  {
   Test();
  }
 
Interesting:

I think it should be like this (both variants work, but in my opinion, the second one is more correct).

So, what is the point of specifying default:return(false ) if the variable belongs to the bool type which basically has only two values, both of which are used in the switch operator? In other words, the default label should never be executed at all.

P.S. 1. Also, if we follow your approach, then the default label becomes mandatory instead of optional.

2. break operators are superfluous in both variants.

 
Yedelkin:

So what is the point of specifying default:return(false ) if the variable belongs to the bool type, which in principle has only two values, both of which are used in the switch statement? In other words, the default label should never be executed at all.

You forget one more thing - any variable can have an invalid value or be uninitialized (have a "rubbish" value)...

Theoretically you can do without default in switch processing, but you still can't ignore a possibility of incorrect parameter.

By the way, with boolean values the compiler is lucky to recognize any value except 0 as true, but what about other data types (e.g. integers or enumerations)?

1...408409410411412413414415416417418419420421422...3190
New comment