edit: i did not test the entire codespace from 0 to 31. let me do that On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:40 PM, Stephen Adolph <[email protected]> wrote:
> seems that low codes survive being loaded into basic. > they don't survive being translated from a .DO. > > > On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:35 PM, Stephen Adolph <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> good question. what I do now is transfer the DO file, and read into a >> .BA in the M100. >> A separate thing would be to transfer a .BA, and just look at the memory >> contents before it is loaded/run, and after. >> >> I don't know what will happen >> >> >> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:30 PM, John R. Hogerhuis <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Stephen Adolph <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> basic programs can't have binary codes <32decimal. I think most or all >>>> of those codes have special meanings. >>>> all of these options would be nice to capture in a document. >>>> >>> >>> >>> What I was wondering is, is that an issue of untokenized BASIC, or is it >>> also a limitation of a tokenized BASIC program. >>> >>> So if you have bytes < 32 in a static string or DATA statement in a >>> tokenized BASIC program, will it still load without corrupting the memory >>> files area in general, and be runnable? >>> >>> -- John. >>> >> >> >
