Talk:83Plus:BCALLs:505C

Comments

To whoever put the comments in the source code for the article, in the future please put such comments on the talk page, otherwise no one will notice them. Tanks. --Dan Englender 13:42, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Acknowledged. Sorry. Actually, I was considering creating a talk page, but then managed to forget about it... --Premchai21 19:16, 27 March 2006 (PST)

Comments from main article

I've moved the questions that were in the main article to the talk page instead:

The block for the Catalog 1 Hook must be set up correctly

• What on earth does this mean?

HL points to the start of the hook.

• The start of the hook block, or what?

F is 6A if the hook was not run.

• And if it was run?

I think "block" is referring to the memory block where the hook's address and page is stored. I'm not sure for the other two, but the answer will probably be to remove both of them because they're not intended outputs. I'll try to clean up this set of articles some time in the near future. --Dan Englender 13:50, 27 March 2006 (PST)

I was more thinking of what "set up correctly" means. For instance, if the hook is not active, does the address still have to be reasonable? I would assume not, but I don't know what the original author intended there. --Premchai21 19:16, 27 March 2006 (PST)

See 83Plus:BCALLs:4003. This B_CALL is almost the same; i.e., the caller is responsible for checking that the IY flag is set. The only difference between the font hook and this one is what happens when the hook is invalid. With this one, unlike with the font hook, the zero flag will be reset (NZ) for condition 0C, set (Z) otherwise. (Presumably this is done to make chaining the Catalog 1/2 hooks easier. I don't know what condition 0C does.) The other flags altered are presumably unintentional. FloppusMaximus 12:10, 28 March 2006 (PST)

OS versions

OK, this doesn't really belong here, but I'll put it here anyway. It is important to check that the B_CALLs really work, but let's not clutter these pages with incomplete information about the OS versions. Basically, unless we find specific examples to the contrary, I think we can assume that the B_CALLs do not change in function from one OS to the next. Very, very few B_CALLs, relatively speaking, have been added or changed over the course of the 83+'s life. (Many are more-or-less unchanged since the days of the 85.)

For those who are wondering... here is the last B_CALL present in each of the TI-83+ OS's I have seen so far.

• 1.03: 50B6
• 1.10: 50B9
• 1.12: 50B9
• 1.13: 50E3 (added SE support)
• 1.14: 50E3
• 1.15: 50E9 (added TIKB support)
• 1.16: 50E9
• 1.18: 50E9
• 1.19: 50E9
• (2.21 added 84+ support; I haven't seen it so I don't know)
• 2.22: 50FB
• 2.30: 52CC (added user USB and clock access)
• 2.40: 5329 (added app and program locking)

The only documented B_CALLs that have been added in all that time are SetExSpeed, TwoVarSet, GetSysInfo, and NZIf83Plus.

(Having put together that list, it occurs to me that we should probably have a page for 83Plus:History of the OS or something, where we could also collect information about what was actually changed with each version.)