Does not create ex4 file

 

Good afternoon to all.

Recently I faced a very interesting dilemma, the compiler in Metaeditor does not work, I press compile and it compiles, but

I tried to reinstall the terminal, but it didn't check for errors and didn't create ex4 file.

I tried to reinstall the terminal did not help.

I am using Windows 7 , security permissions checked all the boxes , I start everything "as admin" . ,

but my problem still persists.

Build 500.

Fellow developers, what may be the problem?

 
The easiest solution to the problem is to replace all underscores in the file with any Latin letter.
 
TheXpert:
The easiest solution to the problem is to replace all underscores in the file with any Latin letter

Sent to the bathhouse as an accomplice.

Although, it's better to declare an incomplete compliance to the one who invented this bullshit.

May 03, 2013 - beta testing of the 495 build is announced. And then, bang, on May 09, 2013 - forcibly inserted the 500 build, despite the fact that the previous one, a lot of questions.

 

Thank you all for your answers.

I thought it was a local problem, but it turns out to be much more serious. I just needed to replace the "_".)

It's weird, but at least it compiles, I thought I had a problem with permissions or antivirus .....)))

 
OmegaTube:

Thank you all for your answers.

I thought it was a local problem, but it turns out to be much more serious. I just needed to replace the "_".)

It's weird, but at least it compiles, I thought I had a problem with permissions or antivirus .....)))


Most importantly, I had to go to the developer's site to see what the problem was... :-))
 
Trouble, I found a file in which after replacing the "_" sign I've got a file where I've replaced the "_" sign with more than 400 errors in MT functions ( OP_BUY, OP_SELL, etc.), which now need to manually replace them back to the "_". Who came up with this innovation, now every time you replace a "not evil quiet word" .... improved called ....... , such improvements only add more work, especially if the code is large, how much time is spent only on replacement .
 
OmegaTube:
Tremendous, I found a file where, after replacing the "_" sign. I've found a file where I replaced the "_" sign with more than 400 errors in MT functions ( OP_BUY, OP_SELL, etc.) which contain this sign, they must now be manually replaced back to the "_". Who came up with this innovation, now every time you replace a "not evil quiet word" .... improved called ....... , such improvements only add more work, especially if the code is large, how much time is spent only on the replacement .

You can't take substitutions so literally. TheXpert gave advice with sadistic taste.

You should at least use your brain once in a while. Unless, of course, the habit of using stolen stuff still has a brain in it.

It's a great innovation. At least they forced to pay attention to the fact that stealing is not good, even from supposedly free sources of stolen goods.

 

Of course you can use the previous build, disable updates and compile and modify normally, but why all of this.

I have a lot of my own codes where I use the "_" sign. , with the number of constants (Volume_1, Volume_2, etc.) , and now what to take

.

 
OmegaTube:

Of course you can use the previous build, disable updates and compile and modify normally, but why all of this.

I have a lot of my own codes where I use the "_" sign. , with the number of constants (Volume_1, Volume_2, etc.) , and now what to take

it's stolen, it's stupid.

Do you yourself believe that the presence of _ means decompile and ban?

Well, you can not say such nonsense. Take a look at "your" code and think, does underscoring in that bacchanalia of auto-generated identifiers and the rest of the code have any meaning?

 

I'm compiling fine, build 509. There are underscores - but only as leading characters. I usually don't use these characters inside variables.

Still I suspect (and hope) that the source code analysis algorithm recently adopted by the company is not as clumsy as some people here think.

Reason: