I know those pains:D Those and an occasional unbalanced left or right parentheses will definitely challenge sanity.SteveHopwood wrote:No idea what the code does and not up to working it out either. You will have got one or more of you < and > the wrong way around.Bruce Flea wrote:SteveHopwood wrote: A fiver says that you have done something really dim in the coding - this stops me dead for hours at a time.
Post the actual code here (pref with useful comments) and we can have a look.
LOL Actually I think it's fairly clean, and concise.
It's lightly commented, but very obvious as to what I'm doing. See what you think.
Everything rests on adding that third shift comparison. Works wonderful without it, and doesn't work at all with...
LOL Stupid 'puters!!
It might take you hours to work out which one(s). When you finally do, you will want to slash your wrists.
Guess how I know?
Good luck. You need it.
But in this case, I had uploaded the fully working version.
The whole reason for this anyway is to run it as I run a visual backtest.
I've found I can see things far more clearly if what I've coded I also make an indi, or template for, and watch as it moves along, looking for any anomalies. It really helps me to shorten the time between finding what is wrong, and fixing it if I can see it working as the tester runs.
No worries, I'll suss it out. Gotta be an answer somewhere:D
Have a great weekend!
Edit: Got it figured, or at least figured where it matters. Confusingly enough, it works fine on the EA. Must be something in the creation of a visual signal that doesn't like the extra code.
Thanks again!