Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Luminary 163 has also been reconstructed! The process is described in #1097.
This was based off of Luminary 173, and was even easier to put together than Luminary 173, since there's not one, but three memos that describe all of the changes between the two. The problem point for this, like for Luminary 173, was ACB L-11, but I've discussed the resolution to that elsewhere.
I did have to write one "line" from scratch for this, but it's very trivial. Between Luminary 164 and 167, the erasable TOOFEW moved from its old location (sharing with QSAVED) to its final resting place, the unswitched unshared location 1354. This was unused in earlier revisions. However, Luminary 152 through 163 did use locations 1355 and 1356 as SERVDURN and DUMLOOPS. To make sure they assembled to the correct place, I added the line
to use up location 1354, and gave a descriptive comment about why I put it there.
There's a particularly fun piece of data we get from this reconstruction: Luminary memo 148 has a table showing the number of words remaining in each bank for Luminary 163. As shown in this comment, this reconstruction matches that table exactly. Which isn't surprising, really, but it adds even more confidence that the reconstructions for 163, 173, and 178 are all correct.
Anyways, as mentioned in the Luminary 173 pull request, I haven't added either program to the top-level Makefile to prevent merge conflicts. They'll need to be added to it after merging.