ASC-> & <-ASC Intermediate Checksums...???
TranslucentAmoebae
Thank you very much for providing me with the ASC-> & <-ASC programs
that i was asking about a few days ago.
But since i'm hand keying all this into my 48, i discovered that there
are Lots of Sissy Valves, and i seem to recall that these have the
potential for causing these calculators to explode, resulting in eye
injuries & red blotchs on exposed skin areas.
Thus: It was kind of surprizing that the tutorial doesn't specifically
indicate if it's 'O.K.' for The HP48gx series or only the sx series...
( Not to mention the numerous intermediate Lettered 'Version's' )
Also: There are no Checksums with any of these programs...!!!
Consequently; i've decided to enter each program and list groups twice,
and compare them for Equivalency... When i get 2 that are Equivalent,
then i may assume that they're entered correctly...??? ) ( !!! )
Alternatively: Could someone provide me with the Checksums for these
programs and lists...!
Thanx!
[ Was i being a more curtious typer this time...???
i want to make you all happy...!!!
Really...!!! ]
John H Meyers
> [Is ASC] for The HP48gx series or only the sx series...
Quoting the beginning of
http://www.hpcalc.org/hp48/docs/faq/48faq-9.html#ss9.1
"9.1 ASC Functions
Note: Although this document mentions SX only,
ASC\-> and \->ASC work on both the SX and GX."
[any HP48, version "A" (first 48S) thru "R" (last 48G)]
Do NOT use on HP49!
Now, there was someone who decided to make an HP49G version
of ASC using exactly the same string format; I suggested that
this was dangerous, because of the general incompatibility
of binary objects between the 48 vs. 49 series,
so why create any potential to bypass all model checking,
enabling storing arbitrary binary objects into the wrong model,
which could be harmful?
The built-in object checksum is of no help in screening
this out, because the method of checksum computation
is exactly the same in both 48 and 49 -- it might have
been useful to change that (although it's actually
built right into the Saturn CPU hardware),
but it's too late now!
The 49G has some built-in newer functions, however,
which make it possible to create an essentially equivalent
system for the 49, using simple UserRPL -- a small difference
in format (the manner of appending the final checksum)
differentiates this suggested system from the 48 series system,
and would suffice to prevent any accidental transfer
of incompatible binary objects, much as is also guarded against
during binary I/O transfers (via the object prefix "HPHP48-x"
or "HPHP49-x" which are each model-specific).
This was my HP49G suggestion
(ASCI and ASCO, replacing ASC\-> and \->ASC)
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.hp48/msg/8ad9a09874a2d1c1
Umm... I wonder what ever happened to the binary file prefix
in HP48Gii? Was it altered, to match any incompatibility
of 48Gii with original 48? (or are they compatible?)
> Also: There are no Checksums with any of these programs...!!!
Again from the FAQ itself:
"Installation instructions:
Save the above text into a text file named CONV (for example).
Be sure that you leave the strings [P2, P3] exactly as entered,
with no extra spaces or other invisible characters
at the beginnings or ends of the lines.
Set the HP48 SX into ASCII transfer mode.
Using Kermit, download CONV text file to the 48,
verify its checksum (6C8Ah)"
If you hand type the programs and strings, just put them all
into a sub-directory containing nothing else, and order them,
e.g. { P1 P2 P3 SETUP } ORDER, then PATH RCL BYTES HEX
will give the checksum of the entire directory,
which should be #6C8Ah
However, you actually need only worry about program P1;
I get that program 'P1' has a checksum of #CCBFh
The other strings (P2, P3, already in ASC format)
contain their own checksums -- that's in part
what ASC is for, to automatically
include and validate checksums.
So once you have managed to create P1 properly,
you will not have to verify any more checksums yourself!
[r->][OFF]
Cockpit Colin
(... and now if I could just get you to type "I" instead of "i" you'd be
almost perfect)
WELL DONE!!!
"TranslucentAmoebae" <transa...@seanet.com> wrote in message
news:1131485028.4...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Jaap Versteegh
> Steller improvement :)
Steller ?
http://www.websters-online-dictionary.com/definition/steller
Cockpit Colin
"Jaap Versteegh" <j.r.versteegh_removethis_@casema_dot_nl> wrote in message
news:43736347$0$16890$dbd4...@news.wanadoo.nl...
Looks like a made an unintentional spelling mistake - it wasn't my first,
and it certainly won't be my last.
I will, however, continue to strive for a high standard of presentation.
John H Meyers
> Steller improvement :)
Did you mean "Stellar" ?
> if I could just get you to type "I" instead of "i"
> you'd be almost perfect
At the risk of imperfection:
i am a little church
http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/11911
Humanity i love you
http://www.americanpoems.com/poets/eecummings/11910
[r->][OFF]