It also get's LISTed funky.
Ken
On 6/1/18 11:45 AM, Stephen Adolph wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:24 AM, Stephen Adolph
<[email protected] <mailto:[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.
