What on earth is going on? - page 8
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
Dear, just a word, because no one for whom working with files is important, until I printed it out, either, suggested that this might be the problem ;) :) Anyway, that's sorted.
Now a distracted question: what is the difference between the following lines?
And, if possible, explanations - why?
Mode of optimization
Tester-mode
The tester mode includes the optimization mode, but not vice versa.
Your both lines are wrong.
The first one:
If optimisation mode, the extension is .opt, otherwise the extension is .tst. But in case of "otherwise", it may not be a tester at all.
Second:
If tester mode, the extension is .tst, otherwise the extension is .opt. But in the case of 'otherwise' it may not be a tester at all.
Right:
Optimisation mode
Tester mode
Tester mode includes optimisation mode, but not vice versa.
Your two lines are both wrong.
The first one:
If optimisation mode, the extension is .opt, otherwise the extension is .tst. But in case of "otherwise", it may not be a tester at all.
Second:
If tester mode, the extension is .tst, otherwise the extension is .opt. But in the case of 'otherwise' it may not be a tester at all.
Right:
this is enough.
Unless, of course, you want to check if the EA works in chart or tester mode.
that's enough.
And if not a tester at all, what is?
And if not a tester at all, then what?
it does not have the task of checking in the tester or on a chart run, but only to determine whether it is a simple run on history or as part of an optimization package, if I understand TC correctly
it does not have the task of checking in the tester or on the chart run, but only to determine whether it is a simple run on history or as part of an optimization package, if I understand TC correctly
Exactly right. If it's not a tester or optimizer, it doesn't come here at all )))
Artem, if I understood correctly, my such design
is superfluous?
It will be enough
?
if the file is written to COMMON, it is mandatory to have SHARE_READ and a rather tricky write race control. It's kind of decent not to shoot the heel in public.
In general, it's good practice that advisors don't write anything in the common. They can read it, but it is written or copied there by the trader who is personally responsible for this. For all Expert Advisors in all terminals, these are words given from above.
If a file is written to a usual directory without SHARE_XXX, but the optimizer generates errors of shared access, then it is a bug of terminal developersSo, the Expert Advisor does not write anything there, it only reads.
P.S. In addition, it's the only one that reads it (so far).
But the Expert Advisor itself doesn't write anything there, it only reads it.
P.S. Besides it reads only it (the only copy so far).
If in COMMON, SHARE_READ is obligatory.
as in the joke - "you can't understand it, you have to remember it" :-)
PS/ when in tester - it reads not only from (separate per group) common but also from all copies being tested in parallel. By the way, this is also a potential bug - it seems it is possible to fool the tester and draw a grail
if in COMMON, SHARE_READ is mandatory.
Well, it's not mandatory.
The multi-access is not as good as you'd like it to be.
Well, it doesn't have to be.
Multi-access isn't all it's cracked up to be.
I hope there are no problems with multi-access in read-only mode? Or is there?
Exactly right. If not a tester or optimiser, you don't get in here at all )))
Artem, if I understood correctly, then my such construction
is superfluous?
It will be enough
?