Not sure I understand your issue. Define the parts with the difference as modules to make them objects that you can move with their holes. Define the holes as modules so that you can subtract them from several parts. If you want to do different things with the holes, like drill them and add fasteners then define the positions of the holes as a module that positions its children. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 09:41, Troberg <troberg.anders@gmail.com> wrote: > I use that a lot in other cases, such as when I want to make "exploded > views" > showing disassembly. > > The problem here, is that the placement of a part is part of making other > parts. I place a part to "poke holes" in other parts using difference(), to > ensure a correct fit. Now, say that this part pokes holes in three other > parts, I can't now move them, because they aren't available as objects > anymore. > > Sure, I could do the math, calculate every position of every tab so that it > lines up, but it's a lot more work, and it makes for a much more error > prone > process, likely to waste expensive material. > > > > -- > Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/ > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org >

That would work, but still not as neat as just letting the parts "shape each other". -- Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/

Could you give a concrete example (modeled however you can) of the kind of situation you're facing?

My guiding principal is to avoid defining the same information more than once. I.e. a repeated expression becomes a named constant if local, else a function. A position either a named constant or a module. That way everything changes together and things don't get out of step. On Tue, 5 Feb 2019 at 15:20, Jordan Brown <openscad@jordan.maileater.net> wrote: > Could you give a concrete example (modeled however you can) of the kind of > situation you're facing? > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenSCAD mailing list > Discuss@lists.openscad.org > http://lists.openscad.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss_lists.openscad.org >

Well, I revised the scheme I had proposed and it is wrong. However, the behind ideas are worth of considering. I have attached a code that follows a (big) revision of those ideas. The following image give an account of the results. [image: BoxCutting.PNG] The set of parts at left is the design of the parts in laser cut plan position with their tabs but without the "voids". The center set shows the parts after have been processed by cutting the matching "voids" for the tabs. This process is automated. At right, the final assembly of the box. I hope it helps.

Yep, that's somewhat what I was looking for. It does get kind of awkward, though, but I haven't found a neater way to do it, especially when you are doing boxies with lots of dividers, and not all shapes being square. -- Sent from: http://forum.openscad.org/