If, something like this was to be pursued, I think the best path ahead would be to evaluate how other cad software has implemented this functionality. What logic is used to get reliable and desired results. There is no need to necessarily reinvent the wheel since it already exists elsewhere. Once you understand how it works from the perspective of implementation then it would make sense to have this sort of conversation about whether or not it would fit well within FreeCAD. At this point everyone is just presenting opinions and speculation.
Hi,
Some menus from other SW.
The Hole and Edge blend are my “most favorit” commands from the daily used commands. The submenus are colapsed in the default and you should to click them and check them. You never know what is hidden and selected, what check boxes are set, or what values inserted from previous usage or derived from part(file) defaults or custommer defaults or who knows from where… For beginners it must be totally overhelming I think.
And the commands are changing during time - sw actualisations. They adding menus and checkboxes, sometimes renaming something, changing of Apply / OK / Cancel buttons possition and logic what it works, some nuances… Yeah they are powerfull commands, but the first 3 weeks after major updates I want to take hammer and smash monitor… I want to concentrate to my work - models, not to the menus what is moved or changed to where…
I know, it is totally different SW, but do not fall to the same sweet and nice - swamp.
And another point of view. One thing is to have powerfull command to create complex geometry. But how it will be done in the model tree? Splitted to more steps of basic geometry creation? When You will edit it, You will edit more basic steps? But the creation command was another tool, more complex. It will lead to force to developers to implement it more deeply into the FC data model to know “this geometry group has been done by this complex command and for editing call the the same complex command” and to see in the model tree this only one step. Is it worth it? Now the FreeCAD is still in huge developement and more fundamental and hard problems must be solved (TNP, full and good implementation of Assembly, parametric patterns of solids, …).
I am not big fan of this solution.
Consider situation like in the image below. You want to align point A with point B vertically but distance form A to B in Y direction is smaller
than in X direction.
In this situation what you can do is to move point A in X direction, and then apply constraint.Otherwise you will get horizontal alignmentof points A and B.
Thanks God FreeCAD didn’t abandon old functionality and i can use V/H constraints separately 
V_H_constraint.png
The very first answer did exactly this and explained which other software use this approach (Inventor, Fusion360) and which use the FreeCAD-approach.
I am not big fan of this solution. …
Sorry I don’t understand the problem here. Simply set your point wherever you want and enter the two constraints then. Where is the problem?
But nevertheless, this thread here is about another question. I brought this example just to demonstrate, that brave radical combinations of tools are currently done in other areas of FreeCAD as well.
That response doesn’t cover the general depth of analysis I’m referring to.
And i brought my example to show, that single command approach sometimes leads to additional steps to achieve desired result.
Most of the proprietary software i know have combined horizontal and vertical constraint where you have to move point to right position before
executing command (sometimes it’s tedious).
To clarify - i am not against features you asked in this thread. I just wanted to point out that combined tools are not always as good as they look like.
In Solid Edge 2023 Siemens did what you are asking about - they combined some additive and subtractive commands, grouped and put some commands into drop-down lists and to me it’s more pain than gain.
A lot of old and experienced users have the same feeling - more clicking to get same result ;/
I understand. If this happens in more than 50% of use cases, it’s badly implemented or a bad idea by default. That’s why I find discussions like this quite valuable. If well implemented, it should be a gain in +90% of use cases and may be a pain in 10% of special occasions.
I’m looking forward to the new combined constraints tools as I find it boring to always select vertical and horizontal constraints first which I think is easy to detect automatically and what I’ve seen lately looks very promising. Even better if they leave the old separated tools for the few special occasions that might appear. As said. If in these cases things snap to the wrong axis or whatever, I’d simply set it anywhere close to the place I want to have it and add the 2 values then manually instead of selecting specialized tools.
Maybe we could make it work similar to the Toggle construction line tool in Sketcher?