A pork pie tasting

[jdaw1]

A pork pie tasting

Everybody loves a pork pie tasting.

As made by the software of 1st September 2021

These were done by an abuse of the parameters.

/CorkDisplayNumCopies 1 def

/GlassesClusteredOnCorkDisplay [
	[[0 1 Titles length 1 sub {} for]]
	Names length 1 sub {dup} repeat
] def  % /GlassesClusteredOnCorkDisplay

/CorkDisplayMinWidth  360 def
/CorkDisplayMinHeight 240 def

/CorkDisplayTopText [
	(The Pork Pies)
	{
		Names CorkDisplaySetNum get
		dup length 0 gt {
			( ) exch /emdash exch ( ) exch
		} if
	}
] def  % /CorkDisplayTopText

/PageOrderingCorkDisplay [ GlassesClusteredOnCorkDisplay length {0} repeat ] def

The cork-display pages were re-purposed into pie pages.

• The CorkDisplayNumCopies is elementary.

• Cork-display pages are usually one, not one per person. Here a pie-page is needed for each person, so GlassesClusteredOnCorkDisplay is of the same length as Names, rather than the usual length of 1.

• Then CorkDisplayMinWidth and CorkDisplayMinHeight were adjusted to encourage the page into being /Landscape rather than /Portrait, as the orientation of a cork-display page is chosen by the software for a best fit.

• Then CorkDisplayTopText, usually being just (The Corks), was changed to include the relevant element of Names — there is one page per person.

• Usually cork-display pages come between the neck-tag pages and the accounts. Pie pages needed to be at the start of the file, done by changing PageOrderingCorkDisplay.

Observe that the Table of Contents (usually visible in the PDF’s side-bar), not knowing that these are indexed by elements of Names, fails to reflect that indexing.

Questions

So, in multiple terrible ways, this is an abuse of the parameters. Which begs questions.

1. Should there be a separate page type to hold ‘rectangular glasses’?

2. Would such a page type be used sufficiently often to justify the effort? To justify the additional complexity of code and of documentation?

3. What parameters should it have?

4. What should be called? Alas ‘pork pies’ affords the abbreviation ‘PP’, already used for pre-pour pages. And the tasting might be of cheese (I like cheese). Maybe ‘Solids’?

5. Such page would not need a title resembling (The Corks), freeing a little space. But in that case where should go the relevant element of Names?

(Edit: ∃ links to here from ThePortForum.com, FTLoP, CellarTracker, WhiskyWhiskyWhisky, and wine-pages.)

[woolfeyes]

1. Yes. This is a very worthwhile addition to the software.
2. This is quite transparently not a logical argument. Not would it be used, but how many times has its omission prevented its use already.
3. Perhaps there should be other geometrical options besides a rectangle. Perhaps a mat can have shapes of different sizes.
4. What’s wrong with ‘food’?
5. A title is a courtesy to the person consulting the mat as to the nature of its contents.

[phwakely]

If considering the corks sheet more generically as a page of tessellated rectangles, with a switch for one per person vs one per tasting; then rather than glasses you would have "itemsCircular" and instead of corks "itemsRectangular" which could theoretically be extended to other shapes if so desired. Top level initial definition of itemsCircularName Glasses and itemsRectangularName Corks by default.

This could potentially be further extended to support multiple different items if wanted, with separate itemsRectangular pages if you design with multiple instantiation in mind, effectively with all itemsRectangular items as arrays.

Probably not worth the change hassle for the glasses given the naming prevelance and primary purpose throughout; your call on the itemsRectangular options depending on how much use/re-use and support for other-type tastings you want to provide, as well as time and will.

[jdaw1]

1. Yes. This is a very worthwhile addition to the software.

Noted.

 

2. This is quite transparently not a logical argument. Not would it be used, but how many times has its omission prevented its use already.

Disagree. New versions of the software cannot be used in the past, only in the future. Any effort would be to improve the future, not to repair the past.

 

3. Perhaps there should be other geometrical options besides a rectangle. Perhaps a mat can have shapes of different sizes.

Currently, each page type looks different. One can see at a glance which is which. So a new page type should not be too similar to the cork-display pages. Maybe the text should be shown in a rectangle with rounded corners, perhaps of radius 30–36pt (image).

But there would not be much choice: triangles and hexagons etc would be much work, and space inefficient, for too little use.

 

4. What’s wrong with ‘food’?

Because it suggests to me a meal, rather than a tasting of smaller pieces. Other possibilities include ‘Morsels’, ‘Nuggets’, ‘Slices’, ‘Wafer’ (as in ‘-thin mint’), and, rejected because cedilla-less, ‘Soupcon’.

 

5. A title is a courtesy to the person consulting the mat as to the nature of its contents.

These are meant to be used by attendees at a tasting, rather than consulted by casual browsers, so this alone is less than convincing. However, some pages are titled (cork-display, decanting notes, accounts). Indeed, Perhaps three titles could be allowed, …Left, …Centre, …Right, the third defaulting to {ThisName}.

[jdaw1]

If considering the corks sheet more generically

Yes, this is what should be done. Or what ought to have been done. The page layouts should be a more general concept, with Names-loopability being specified when instantiated, multiple instances of course being allowed. But more abstraction in the code would be more difficult for newbies; would be too awkward in the chosen language; and the

time and will

are insufficient.

[knutliott]

My first thought upon seeing the picture was that it looks disturbingly similar to the placemats used by the Kansas City Barbecue Society for judging. Except those are larger (presumably 11" x 17") and have 6 boxes to hold the 6 samples of each meat. You receive a new placemat for each of the 4 meats. But I digress.

I would certainly use this feature for a sheet of cheeses at a Port tasting, potentially also for a sheet of charcuterie, but I'm not convinced that I need to print a separate sheet for each attendee for that purpose. A single sheet would likely suffice for my purposes, being the sheet (each) that holds and conveniently labels the small plates of appetizers, perhaps on a side table, while one is drinking Port.

[jdaw1]

it looks disturbingly similar to the placemats used by the Kansas City Barbecue Society for judging. Except those are larger (presumably 11" x 17") and have 6 boxes to hold the 6 samples of each meat. You receive a new placemat for each of the 4 meats.

Please post an example, either as a PDF, or as a picture of one being used. [Edit: request for this sent to the KCBS.]

 

I would certainly use this feature for a sheet of cheeses at a Port tasting

Two users materially increases the probability of this happening.

 

I'm not convinced that I need to print a separate sheet for each attendee for that purpose. A single sheet would likely suffice for my purposes, being the sheet (each) that holds and conveniently labels the small plates of appetizers, perhaps on a side table, while one is drinking Port.

So you want a serving display, rather than a per-person eating-from placemat. That could be accommodated. But pray tell, why not the per-person eating-from placemat? Perhaps the serving display would be bigger (A3 or 17″×11″), whereas the eating-from would be smaller (A4 or 11″× 8½″), necessitating that at least some parameters be separate.

[knutliott]

Sadly, I do not have any pictures of KCBS tasting mats, nor am I likely to acquire any in the near future. KCBS events are few and far between in the Pacific Northwest. Re: serving vs eating-from, I don't hold cheese tastings. But I do serve a variety of cheeses and charcuterie at Port tastings, for which a serving placemat to identify same would be useful. There is rarely space (or sufficient dishes) to have an eating-from placemat for cheese and charcuterie in addition to the Port glasses placemat.

…

On Tue, Sep 7, 2021 at 4:09 PM jdaw1 ***@***.***> wrote: it looks disturbingly similar to the placemats used by the Kansas City Barbecue Society for judging. Except those are larger (presumably 11" x 17") and have 6 boxes to hold the 6 samples of each meat. You receive a new placemat for each of the 4 meats. Please post an example, either as a PDF, or as a picture of one being used. I would certainly use this feature for a sheet of cheeses at a Port tasting Two users materially increases the probability of this happening. I'm not convinced that I need to print a separate sheet for each attendee for that purpose. A single sheet would likely suffice for my purposes, being the sheet (each) that holds and conveniently labels the small plates of appetizers, perhaps on a side table, while one is drinking Port. So you want a *serving* display, rather than a per-person *eating-from* placemat. That could be accommodated. But pray tell, why not the per-person *eating-from* placemat? — You are receiving this because you commented. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#153 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/ASQWJQ5TS3AYLX22Y763GO3UA2LTFANCNFSM5DQ43CCQ> . Triage notifications on the go with GitHub Mobile for iOS <https://apps.apple.com/app/apple-store/id1477376905?ct=notification-email&mt=8&pt=524675> or Android <https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.github.android&referrer=utm_campaign%3Dnotification-email%26utm_medium%3Demail%26utm_source%3Dgithub>.