I had similar thoughts about checking for the last name that SMSQ adds, but it's not a solution that I'm happy with as it adds a lot of (probably version specific) complexity, and I'm not even sure that it would give the right result anyway.
I think the best answer is to check the OS version and simply report "Not Implemented" if an attempt is made to use the command to list "non-core" resident procedures under SMSQ, so that's the way I will go. Thanks for your thoughts. Adrian www.memorylanecomputing.com On 30/01/2012 17:24, George Gwilt wrote: > > On 30 Jan 2012, at 15:59, Norman Dunbar wrote: > >> >> On 30/01/12 15:44, Adrian Ives wrote: >>> Does anyone know if there is a documented and reliable way of finding >>> out the address address range that any version of SMSQ has been loaded into? >> Um, no, sorry. >> >>> Alternatively can anyone suggest a better way of performing the test? >> Off the top of my head, I assume that the inbuilt routines in the "ROM" are >> still linked in in the same order as on the original QL ROM. >> >> I assume that whatever is last in that list will be the last "resident" >> procedure/function in the name list. Could you not obtain that address (of >> whatever is last in the inbuilt list) and anything higher than that address >> is an extra? >> >> It could work? Maybe? ;-) >> > > I imagine that any entries in the name list after the last one in SMSQ will > have to be LRSPRd ones. If so you wouldn't need the actual address of the > keyword's code. > > George > _______________________________________________ > QL-Users Mailing List > http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm > _______________________________________________ QL-Users Mailing List http://www.q-v-d.demon.co.uk/smsqe.htm
