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. >>>>> >>>> >>
