>> Dunno about other versions of BASIC, but in BBC BASIC I'm pretty sure
>> you had the "LOCAL" keyword to do just that.
>
> If that's actually true, that would make it usefully more sophisticated 
> than, say, Spectrum or C64 BASIC.

A little googling shows this to actually be true.  The following link is 
part of the BBC Micro user guide (back in the days when you actually got a 
useful book with computers) - scroll down to "LOCAL":

http://central.kaserver5.org/Kasoft/Typeset/BBC/KeyL.html

Post a reply to this message

>> If that's actually true, that would make it usefully more
>> sophisticated than, say, Spectrum or C64 BASIC.
>
> A little googling shows this to actually be true. The following link is
> part of the BBC Micro user guide (back in the days when you actually got
> a useful book with computers)

Ah yes, I remember those days.

I don't know if you can find it with Google, but the Sam Coupe had an 
especially nice user guide, with little epigraphs and cartoon graphics 
and all sorts. Then again, the Sam Coupe was a rather nice (yet 
surprisingly unknown) machine...

> - scroll down to "LOCAL":

A cursory skim of the manual quickly reveals that *this* dialect of 
BASIC allows you to define procedures and functions (as well as the 
local variables you cite). This makes it much more sophisticated than 
most of the BASIC dialects of the time. It qualifies as a structured 
language, while most BASIC dialects were unstructured. This entails a 
significant increase in power.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:52:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>  Makes you
> wonder what on Earth you can actually do with a 4KB machine...

Not for those who actually have used 4 KB machines. ;-)

"Oregon Trail" anyone?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

>> Makes you
>> wonder what on Earth you can actually do with a 4KB machine...
>
> Not for those who actually have used 4 KB machines. ;-)

Alternatively, "makes you wonder what the **** is using up 4,096 bytes 
for an *empty* email?!"

Post a reply to this message

Le 07/10/2010 16:25, Jim Henderson a écrit :
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:52:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>>  Makes you
>> wonder what on Earth you can actually do with a 4KB machine...
> 
> Not for those who actually have used 4 KB machines. ;-)
> 
> "Oregon Trail" anyone?
> 
> Jim
4KB of ram is a luxury computer.
Really. Sinclair ZX81 anyone ?
A keyboard that is always clean: at worst, a wet sponge over it and it's
clean again.

3D Maze... beware of the T-Rex!

-- 
A good Manager will take you
through the forest, no mater what.
A Leader will take time to climb on a
Tree and say 'This is the wrong forest'.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:29:03 +0100, Invisible wrote:

>>> Makes you
>>> wonder what on Earth you can actually do with a 4KB machine...
>>
>> Not for those who actually have used 4 KB machines. ;-)
> 
> Alternatively, "makes you wonder what the **** is using up 4,096 bytes
> for an *empty* email?!"

Easy:  Headers.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 16:37:19 +0200, Le_Forgeron wrote:

> Le 07/10/2010 16:25, Jim Henderson a écrit :
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 08:52:40 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> 
>>>  Makes you
>>> wonder what on Earth you can actually do with a 4KB machine...
>> 
>> Not for those who actually have used 4 KB machines. ;-)
>> 
>> "Oregon Trail" anyone?
>> 
>> Jim
> 4KB of ram is a luxury computer.
> Really. Sinclair ZX81 anyone ?
> A keyboard that is always clean: at worst, a wet sponge over it and it's
> clean again.
> 
> 3D Maze... beware of the T-Rex!

Ain't that the truth!  My first computer (we owned at home, that is) was 
a Sinclair ZX81, but we had the 16 KB expansion pack for it.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:29:03 +0100, Invisible wrote:
> 
>>>> Makes you
>>>> wonder what on Earth you can actually do with a 4KB machine...
>>> Not for those who actually have used 4 KB machines. ;-)
>> Alternatively, "makes you wonder what the **** is using up 4,096 bytes
>> for an *empty* email?!"
> 
> Easy:  Headers.

Index entries, too. And maybe it's counting clusters allocated.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   Serving Suggestion:
     "Don't serve this any more. It's awful."

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 09:47:19 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2010 15:29:03 +0100, Invisible wrote:
>> 
>>>>> Makes you
>>>>> wonder what on Earth you can actually do with a 4KB machine...
>>>> Not for those who actually have used 4 KB machines. ;-)
>>> Alternatively, "makes you wonder what the **** is using up 4,096 bytes
>>> for an *empty* email?!"
>> 
>> Easy:  Headers.
> 
> Index entries, too. And maybe it's counting clusters allocated.

True

Post a reply to this message

On 07/10/2010 05:47 PM, Darren New wrote:

> And maybe it's counting clusters allocated.

I don't think so. It only tells you the email size to the nearest whole 
number, but I've seen emails listed as 1KB. (Then again, I don't know 
what the cluster size is...)

Post a reply to this message