[Coco] CocoTape

[Robert Gault]

Roger Taylor wrote:
> At 07:26 AM 1/11/2009, you wrote:
>> Roger,
>>
>> Here is a test of the cocotape.exe version inadvertently posted to 
>> Maltedmedia.
>>
>> I used a short ml program of 639 bytes, multiple origins ($DF6, $FA50, 
>> $FB47, $FED0), and an execution address of $FC4F. Cocotape was tried 
>> with both default parameters, -data, and -d -g. The results were not 
>> what I expected.
>>
>> cocotape swread.bin -data
>> or
>> cocotape swread.bin
> 
> 
> ??????  Robert, there is no advertising in the CoCoTape program, no more 
> so than someone putting a sticker label on their product that tells 
> where it was obtained.  ALL files transferred report the same filename 
> to the CoCo and I picked COCO3   COM   instead of  FILE    EXT.  
> CoCoTape isn't designed to replace a motor controlled tape deck, and no 
> attempt will be made to translate a misc.-length PC filename into an 8.3 
> tape filename format.  There's no need to.  Just type CLOAD or CLOADM on 
> the CoCo and the file will load.
> 
> Now, on the test message you got, I see now that the MakeGappedBinary() 
> routine in the source code clearly still has the test mode invoked.  I 
> apologize.  You won't be able to transfer gapped binary files in 
> CoCoTape 1.0.  I see nothing that even comes close to an ad in this test 
> message.  It simply says By Golly It Works.
> 
> As far as your bug report, I see no bugs in the -options, just a little 
> confusing mis-wordage in the text.
> A machine language program is not a -data file.  -data is for data like 
> it says, as a file used by OPEN, not CLOADM.
> -data should not generate a CLOADM'able file
> -g alone should not generate a CLOADM'able file. I should have said, 
> "add -g for...."
> 
> 

OK, I may have worded the report badly. I did expect to test 
transferring a file from a PC to a Coco. Instead of the chosen file, I 
got the file name COCO3.COM and the "by golly" message.

That much worked but it does not constitute a complete test of a file 
transfer from my point of view. Are you saying I should run a test with 
a contiguous file because that would transfer, or would I just get the 
"by golly" message?