(2020-05-27, 16:32)Daniel R Wrote: I described my vision (which is similar yours) in the following message. I am not saying it is the way, but I think it is easier to implement in LDCad and applies to more situations. On the other hand, it requires more boilerplate (all these group definitions) and maybe it is a bit less logical (because it requires first to place part in a wrong (temporary) location and only then move it to the correct location).
The MOVE GROUP meta, you mean? Yes, I do see how that could apply to the same situation. But one of things I was thinking of with FLOAT is that it very simply addresses the common need to hover a single part. I actually took the presumption the "applies to more situations" would be objectionable rather than desirable, because as you note, it leads to fairly convoluted syntax situations, which is something we want to get away from with buffer exchange.
That being said, if you wanted to float multiple parts, you could always place a submodel in the following type 1 line. Or to make use of LDCad groups, perhaps there's a way to reference a group in a type 1 line—but another presumption I made (and didn't say out loud) is that we'd want to limit ourselves to one ref line per part used (to avoid having to adjust the parts list/BOM, etc.). With buffer exchange, you have to reference each part twice (or more).
So perhaps that could be another parameter in the FLOAT line itself—i.e., "float the next part referenced and any group it's part of"?
Quote:Specifically, I dislike the number of steps suggestion because steps order and count can change and you would need to correct all these numbers.
Yes, of course either the software or the user would have to keep track of that. Of course, the parameter would be configurable, so at the end of your workflow you could easily adjust a part's float settings. Anyway, I think the general preference would be towards including an option and letting the user disable it if need be, rather than just denying the option in the first place.
To be sure, perhaps the parameter argument is not the best solution. Would your MOVE GROUP command have some way to handle multi-step hovering, or would it just not allow for this possibility?