Questions from Beginners MQL5 MT5 MetaTrader 5 - page 644

[Alexey Viktorov]

Alexey Kozitsyn:
And I do update the environment, it's just that your search method will take much longer, that's all, and as for reliability, that's debatable.

"Much longer" is how many days? May I ask if it goes into a few weeks?

[[Deleted]]

Alexey Viktorov:
"Much longer" is how many days? Can we clarify if it goes into a few weeks?

There's not enough data... but you're likely to go into months:)

[Alexey Viktorov]

Alexey Kozitsyn:
And there's not enough data... but you are likely to go into months:)

And if there is insufficient data, on what basis are such claims made?

[[Deleted]]

Alexey Viktorov:
And if there is insufficient data, on what basis are such claims made?

On the same basis on which you also made the assumption that "much more" could take days or weeks.

[Alexey Viktorov]

Alexey Kozitsyn:
On the same ones you also made the assumption that "much more" could take days or weeks.

You don't seem to understand humour or sarcasm...

Then if "much more" is measured in much smaller values, is there any point in such savings risking reliability?

[[Deleted]]

Alexey Viktorov:

You don't seem to understand humour or sarcasm...

Then if "much more" is measured in much smaller values, is there any point in such savings risking reliability?

Not at all, that's why I answered about a month, even added a smiley at the end:)

And seriously, much more can be "really much more in time", but, only relative to the optimal solution.

[Alexey Viktorov]

Alexey Kozitsyn:

Not at all, that's why I replied about a month, even adding a smiley at the end:)

And seriously, a lot more can be "really a lot more in time", but, only in relation to the optimal solution.

One last thing on this subject. There are 2 optimal solutions

1. optimal among reliable ones.

2. optimal with high risks.

Everyone chooses his own.

Bye, good luck.

[mila.com]

Thank you, for your help and informative discussion.

[Alexey Viktorov]

mila.com:

Thank you for your help and informative discussion.

My example should not be used without modification. It was written "on the spot" without checking and after some thought I realised that it's not that simple. Even when modifying an order, you might miss a ticket or leave one or more incorrectly taken into account.

A variant: Before a cycle in variable _1 to write a ticket, for example zero warrant, and then in a cycle going from the first to total-1 in this variable to write the ticket which will be younger, and senior modify.

I hope I explained it clearly.

[[Deleted]]

Alexey Viktorov:

I would do so.

Unfortunately, this has not been tested and I cannot figure out if there is a "hole" in the list of orders after the next order is closed.

If anyone is able to explain the possibility of such a "gap" appearing, I would be grateful...

As an insurance, another continue is inserted; if there is a gap, one order will simply be skipped. It seems to me so.

My example may not be used without modification. It was written on my own without checking and after some thought, I understood that it is not so easy. Even with order modification, there may be omissions, leaving one or more tickets incorrectly considered.

Another variant: Before the loop, write a ticket, for example, of zero order, in variable _1, and then write a ticket from the first to total-1 in this variable, which will be younger, and modify the senior one.

I hope I explained it clearly.

If we assume that the last order in terms of time is not the last order in the list, then your example is not correct, because it doesn't take into account the very first order (#0).