Hi folks. @ Mike Stein OK Mike, thanks! PB$(1)=LEFT$(PB$(1),3) + LEFT$(D$,5) + RIGHT$(PB$(1),LEN(PB$(1))-9) seems works, or better it doesn't show any errors. Only by executing the whole code I'll be sure all it's well, anyway I hope it will be so. As for my statement, the word weak I used for the BASIC of 8201A is related to KC-85, TRS-80/100 and M10 which were its direct antagonists in the same age, practically the same project but rebranded. It doesn't mean that antagonist were better or worse but rather that in this case they were simpler to use in that specific scenario (MID$ function).
@ Terry Stewart Ok Terry, agree. I didn't want to be rude. Untill now me too I had no complaints about 8201A for what it is, infact I haven't any Tandy, Olivetti, Kyotronic or anything else, I own only the NEC. What I did want say is in my opinion about the weird choice NEC did. Feels as some limitations have been purposely put. I mean even the different (poor?) support for the graphic, not only about syntax of MID$ function. About if Tandy/Kyocera/Olivetti models were more advanced of NEC, I don't even know where, once I have read that despite 8201 is the older, being be the first to appear as 8201 in Japan on Jannuary 1983 (the TRS-80/100 appeared in USA on March 1983, where the 8201A appeared on September 1983 followed by M10), it was modern designed and more accurate project than its antagonist siblings. In essence, its hardware and software architecture is closer to that of a nowadays computer compared to TRS-80/100 and M10. For the hardware side, for example, we consider as expandable the machine is and software side the IPL management. I didn't want argue on which was the better one. Instead in my opinion Achille's heel of the 8201, especially nowadays, is lack of natively available software. Generally there is need to translate code from siblings to NEC that isn't so trite to do, as sadly I'm myself experimenting. Peppino
