0-31 survives loading. Agree with Ken that the file can't be edited... On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 2:41 PM, Stephen Adolph <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
