> > I think I get your point. After more thinking about it (which I should have done before, sorry for that), [...]
> No worries. I'm not expressing my points in the directest and clearest possible manner, either. I think we
> started at opposite vague extremes and are slowly "haggling" our way to meet somewhere in the middle.
> I started at "This is not possible"; you started at "This is possible." I'm still 100% certain that when we meet
> it'll be on the "This is not possible" side of the line... but we're still working our way there.

Well, no more way to work on… I give up. While preparing a much longer answer to your questions and to the remark from Martin Küttler, I reach contradictions which I don’t manage to resolve (for now at least) without going into too complex considerations or creating a new language – which is definitely what I don’t want to do.

So as you said, it seems I’m not able to cross that “this is not possible” line… But in all failure there’s a lesson to learn 😉

Thank you all for your time.

Regards,

Yves Bailly
Development engineer
Manufacturing Intelligence division
Hexagon
M: +33 (0) 6.82.66.09.01
HexagonMI.com<https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.hexagonmi.com%2Ffr-FR%2F&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9382ad0642f34df9564908d8007bc6c4%7C1b16ab3eb8f64fe39f3e2db7fe549f6a%7C0%7C0%7C637259878894792630&sdata=VS4%2B3Oc4yGnnDiF7m8x%2BiD6u5GnRjS634jv1suVUhrU%3D&reserved=0>