Thanks for your reply (and for actually taking the time to code an example).
That is exactly the fallback solution that I have already anticipated, and demonstrates perfectly why I asked the question about the existence of an object:marked() method.
No disrespect to you at all, but your solution is exactly what I am trying, with all my will, to avoid
...because, I am philosophically opposed to: creating at least 30 lines of celx code and having to maintain a new table
, in order to solve a problem which more correctly (and efficiently) can be solved with:
1. a few lines of C++ to create a new celX method exposing the appropriate object attribute (for which there is almost certainly an analog already in a C++ library - clearly accessed by the CTRL-P function),
2. a single line of celX to call the method.
I'm sure you understand where I'm coming from.
Thanks again though for taking the trouble to actually write the example.
At the very least, I can now cut and paste from your code, rather than write it myself... that is if I can just bring myself to drop my principles.
( Unfortunately, I suspect that eventually I may have no other choice.
)I would rather in fact encourage one of the DEVs to make this simple addition to the celX library.
I'd actually make this change myself if I had an IDE.
Although I'm not familiar enough to deal with most of the Celestia code, this is the sort of very simple contribution that I would be confident to do, and I'm sure the main DEV team have bigger fish to fry.
( I did ask Chris some months ago about the most appropriate IDE to use, but never received a reply.)
I have a vague memory of people reporting issues around using VS2010 Express. I suspect that the DEV team probably no longer use the M$ tools at all since the switch to QT4 development, but there's not been any communication on these matters (at least not that I've seen, but then I've not been very active here in the last couple of years)
It would actually be good if there was more communication of these issues from the DEV team (ie. guides to the best tools to use, etc) because then some of us who are probably capable of contributing to the more mundane and trivial tasks such as the above, would be able to take off some of the load from the DEV's, although they'd still have to peer review it (which would probably take as much time as for them to write the code themselves).
Anyway, enough of a rant for today!
Thanks again for your help ... it is appreciated, even though it may appear otherwise.