Umm. Good point. I'm not sure why you couldn't actually. Have you
tried it and it doesn't work?
Ken
On 5/21/21 9:14 PM, Gary Weber wrote:
By the way, I actually have always been puzzled by why I can't
directly load a tokenized .BA file. It makes sense that a lack of an
NEC tokenizer would prevent the loading of an ASCII version of a BASIC
file which erroneously has the ".BA" extension, but I would have
thought that loading a tokenized .BA file wouldn't be much different
than loading a .CO file -- just a direct copy into memory.
Please enlighten me! :-)
Gary
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 8:50 PM Gary Weber <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I can use the intrinsic Load & Save functions in the menu for .DO
and .CO files, but I can't use the Load option for .BA files due
to the dreaded "Ill formed BASIC file". (Lack of an NEC
tokenizer, methinks.)
The Save to HD option does work for .BA files, but since I have to
jump into TS-DOS in order to load a .BA properly, I'm just
accustomed to using one interface (TS-DOS) for file operations
just as a matter of practice.
Gary.
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 7:56 PM Ken Pettit <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Of course I need to ask the question that hasn't been asked yet:
Why go to all the trouble of trying to save off a file from
VirtualT to the host using TS-DOS and the virtual NADSBox
emulation? Why not just use the "File -> Save to HD" menu option?
Ken
On 5/21/21 6:28 PM, Stephen Adolph wrote:
I cant test this. It is entirely internal.
From what I read you have
Virtual T NEC, with TSDOS
Chatting with
Virtual Nadsbox
Using internal connection.
If you could show that real NEC has this issue then I am all
set to snoop it.
You could use laddieAlpha as a client for example.
On Friday, May 21, 2021, Stephen Adolph <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I think I just made a testbed for that.
Happy to set up and capture traces
On Friday, May 21, 2021, Gary Weber <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Yeah, that's interesting. Suppose we could "sniff"
what TS-DOS is doing, as this is 100% repeatable. In
my case, every test I've done results in the file
handle not being closed, so it must never be sending
the opcode. That just seems very weird to me, though.
On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 4:39 PM John R. Hogerhuis
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Which would be a bug in TSDOS. Which either would
have to be fixed there or we close the file after
a timeout or some other TPDD command can be used
as an indication the file is no longer being
written. Like if the directory starts being
enumerated.
-- John.
