Yes, that's the same as my experience. I've always been able to save a tokenized .BA file from the VirtualT 'File' menu, as I mentioned earlier. The fact that I can't load one, though, has always just meant I've generally used TS-DOS for all operations.
A large NEC flavored .BA file will be in your inbox shortly! On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 10:27 PM Ken Pettit <petti...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, it seems I can *save* a tokenized .BA from VirutalT "File" menu, > it's just the load doesn't work. But I can then load it from TS-DOS. > > I can see in the VirtualT "TPDD Server Log" monitor window that TS-DOS is > in fact sending a CLOSE file opcode, and the C printf statement I added in > VirtualT says it is closing the file. > > Now I would need a large .BA file for the NEC to be able to test with. > > Ken > > On 5/21/21 9:49 PM, Gary Weber wrote: > > Wow Ken, it's kind of you to jump on these. If you fix these, I owe you > dinner. Three or four dinners, even. > Gary. > > > On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 9:46 PM Ken Pettit <petti...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Yeah, I just tried it. There must be some issue with the addresses of >> the system pointers or something. >> >> I'm looking into this now, along with why NADSBox doesn't close the file. >> >> Ken >> >> On 5/21/21 9:42 PM, Gary Weber wrote: >> >> Correct. Here's the results of both scenarios, using NEC emulation mode >> in VirtualT: >> >> * When you attempt to load an ASCII BASIC program that is "improperly" >> named as a ".BA" file, the NEC emulation mode just hangs, and upon a Reset, >> you get a cold start. But this all makes sense; due to lack of an NEC >> tokenizer, who knows what VirtualT is trying to do. >> * When you attempt to load a tokenized BASIC program that is properly >> named as a .BA file, you get "Ill formed BASIC file". This hasn't ever >> made sense to me as it could be treated as a binary file. >> >> Gary. >> >> >> On Fri, May 21, 2021 at 9:16 PM Ken Pettit <petti...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 <g...@web8201.com> 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 <petti...@gmail.com> 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 <twospru...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I think I just made a testbed for that. >>>>>> Happy to set up and capture traces >>>>>> >>>>>> On Friday, May 21, 2021, Gary Weber <g...@web8201.com> 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 <jho...@pobox.com> >>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >> >
