Software that makes placemats

[jdaw1]

For the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, RAYC made several similar versions of the placemats, and then overlapped the printouts to simulate the following A3 arrangement.

Of course this overlapping of multiple copies is unacceptable.

Currently the array parameter PermittedPackingStyles may contain any of (and must contain at least one of) /PseudoHexagonal, /SquareGrid, /RectangularDislocation, /RectangularDislocationV, /TwoRowsOrTwoColumns, /GaiaElegant, /Gaia, or /Irregular or one of its variants. None of these do quite what RAYC required.

The proposal is to allow PermittedPackingStyles to contain an array, at least as long as the number of glasses on the page. That array would contain sub-arrays of locations, [ x y ]. My code would then choose the radius and separately scale the x and y directions such that things fit as snugly as possible, obviously subject to the other upper bounds on the radius. That gives the technical user a lot of control over the rare complicated cases, whilst the usual name parameters still cope with the vast majority of arrangements that could be wanted.

In the particular case of the GC+SW+QH tasting, the element of PermittedPackingStyles could have been [ [0 2] [2 2] [4 2] [6 2] [0 1] [3 1] [6 1] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ]. Observe that this example assumes that positive y points north. This echoes the usual PostScript convention; but conflicts with the usual page arrangements in which glasses with a small WithinPage are at the top.

Thoughts? Comments? Views on which direction positive y should be? Bottle of Taylor 1977?

(This post the last on this page. Please could the first to reply to it quote it, except this line.)

[DRT]

After the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, DRT asked that there be extra paper between tasters’ sets. He then suggested that this could be my placename page. So JDAW placename, JDAW glasses, JDAW TNs, then the next person’s same.

My thinking is as follows.

• I could add an extra page, marked with my name, with no other function. The wastage rankles.

• Or it could be the placename, as DRT suggested. But RAYC prints the placenames to card, so having them non-consecutive would complicate his printing.

• Or alternate sets (alternate people, so to speak) could be rotated by 180°. But would that be sufficiently different for the task at hand?

What do others think?

I think the wastage caused by the first option is no more environmentally wasteful than RAYC's unnecessary use of card and the third option doesn't solve the problem.

I now prefer my first suggestion of having a simple separator between the placemat and tasting note set of each attendee. The placename sheets can then be placed together so that they can be printed on card or not.

[jdaw1]

I think the wastage caused by the first option is no more environmentally wasteful than RAYC's unnecessary use of card

The wastage is additional, not substitutional.

the third option doesn't solve the problem.

Does it lessen the problem?

[RAYC]

After the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, DRT asked that there be extra paper between tasters’ sets. He then suggested that this could be my placename page. So JDAW placename, JDAW glasses, JDAW TNs, then the next person’s same.

My thinking is as follows.

• I could add an extra page, marked with my name, with no other function. The wastage rankles.

• Or it could be the placename, as DRT suggested. But RAYC prints the placenames to card, so having them non-consecutive would complicate his printing.

• Or alternate sets (alternate people, so to speak) could be rotated by 180°. But would that be sufficiently different for the task at hand?

What do others think?

I think the wastage caused by the first option is no more environmentally wasteful than RAYC's unnecessary use of card and the third option doesn't solve the problem.

For what percentage of tastings do we include the placenames? 10%-20%....? Including them in the placemat set for every tasting regardless of need could be argued as wasteful (more so than DRT's argument re: use of card), though i am not going to get too excited about a few sheets of A4 paper once in a while. If people are that concerned about waste, i should start off by acquiring recycled paper to print on. Or using laminated placemats with numbered circles that can be re-used at multiple tastings. Or eating less cheese/meat etc. etc. etc.

But overall i don't think this is a problem that requires changes to the code. Presumably the easy answer is for the printer to simply insert a post-it note or sticky tab in-between each person's set of placemats, rather than try to control this in the printing? It would take but a minute. My printer also has the option to insert a blank sheet of coloured A4 paper in between printed sheets at set intervals, so this is another option where i am printing. If required, the coloured A4 paper could be collected for re-use by whoever is concerned by their wastage!

[jdaw1]

Or eating less cheese/meat

Steady on, old chap. This is meant to be a civilised discussion about a PostScript program.

[DRT]

Or eating less cheese/meat

Steady on, old chap. This is meant to be a civilised discussion about a PostScript program.

Hear, hear!!! {grumble, grumble, grumble, vegetarian eco-warrior nonsense, grumble, grumble...)

What about: CollateAndSeparate /def no {set to yes if required} ?

[jdaw1]

What about: CollateAndSeparate /def no {set to yes if required} ?

Collation is conceptually separate and already done.

The wastage still rankles, and it also gives the appearance of pre-planned wastage. Do we really want, camped outside our tastings, bearded eco-warrior feminist types with organic-linen banners bearing Hutcheson scrawls? Do we really?

The 180° thing is easy, so will be done, even if it is only a small improvement.

[DRT]

The wastage still rankles, and it also gives the appearance of pre-planned wastage. Do we really want, camped outside our tastings, bearded eco-warrior feminist types with organic-linen banners bearing Hutcheson scrawls? Do we really?

No, we don't want that. I am not against feminism as such, but not when combined with beards.

The 180° thing is easy, so will be done, even if it is only a small improvement.

90° would solve the problem entirely.

[jdaw1]

90° would solve the problem entirely.

Are you being helpful?

Edit: let me take the suggestion seriously. Some printers do have an ‘A4R’ tray, for A4 rotated by that so-useful 90°. But some (most?) such printers will output to a different output tray. Further for transport to the venue some (most?) people would need to align all the pages both to shrink the size and to prevent pages moving and ceasing to be flat.

[jdaw1]

The 180° thing is easy, so will be done, even if it is only a small improvement.

Rotate180AlternateNames is done. E.g.:

• Placemats with default settings;
• 15 Dec 2011, The Bell;
• 2 Mar 2012, Horizontal of 1980;
• 25 July 2012, Olympic Years.

Comment welcomed.

[jdaw1]

Done.

[PhilW]

• I could add an extra page, marked with my name, with no other function. The wastage rankles.

• Or it could be the placename, as DRT suggested. But RAYC prints the placenames to card, so having them non-consecutive would complicate his printing.

• Or alternate sets (alternate people, so to speak) could be rotated by 180°. But would that be sufficiently different for the task at hand?

What do others think?

I agree that the "this page left intentionally blank" equivalent is a waste. While considering the requested solution (additional blank page between each set of sheets), perhaps it is worth clarifying the requirement in order to determine the options and best solution; Would I be right in thinking that the requirement/issue here is to clarify the start of each person's set of sheets? If so, a simple marker in one corner which only appears on the first of each set of sheets might address this without using additional sheets, for example (another option could be to use double-sided printing and have alternate people sheets on opposite sides, though that would only work for double-sided capable printers).

For the GC + SW + QH triple vertical on Thu 17 Nov 2011, RAYC made several similar versions of the placemats, and then overlapped the printouts to simulate the following A3 arrangement.

Of course this overlapping of multiple copies is unacceptable.

Currently the array parameter PermittedPackingStyles may contain any of (and must contain at least one of) /PseudoHexagonal, /SquareGrid, /RectangularDislocation, /RectangularDislocationV, /TwoRowsOrTwoColumns, /GaiaElegant, /Gaia, or /Irregular or one of its variants. None of these do quite what RAYC required.

The proposal is to allow PermittedPackingStyles to contain an array, at least as long as the number of glasses on the page. That array would contain sub-arrays of locations, [ x y ]. My code would then choose the radius and separately scale the x and y directions such that things fit as snugly as possible, obviously subject to the other upper bounds on the radius. That gives the technical user a lot of control over the rare complicated cases, whilst the usual name parameters still cope with the vast majority of arrangements that could be wanted.

In the particular case of the GC+SW+QH tasting, the element of PermittedPackingStyles could have been [ [0 2] [2 2] [4 2] [6 2] [0 1] [3 1] [6 1] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ]. Observe that this example assumes that positive y points north. This echoes the usual PostScript convention; but conflicts with the usual page arrangements in which glasses with a small WithinPage are at the top.

Thoughts? Comments?

I'd suggest that the [x y] scales should be of the same proportion (which they are either not, above, or you have additional column gaps which I don't believe you don't intend if they are). So for the example you are creating, with proportionate scales the elements would be [ [0 4] [2 4] [4 4] [6 4] [0 2] [3 2] [6 2] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ].

Views on which direction positive y should be?

As you have it in the example.

Bottle of Taylor 1977?

Yes please, shall we order some steak too?

[RAYC]

Or eating less cheese/meat

Steady on, old chap. This is meant to be a civilised discussion about a PostScript program.

Hear, hear!!! {grumble, grumble, grumble, vegetarian eco-warrior nonsense, grumble, grumble...)

I think you have both misunderstood the point i was making!

Anyway, i will re-pose my initial question: would sticky-tabs/post-it notes that are inserted after printing not be an easier way of separating tasting sets at the tasting set-up?

[RAYC]

(another option could be to use double-sided printing and have alternate people sheets on opposite sides, though that would only work for double-sided capable printers).

To elaborate on this suggestion, which i think is a good one (by comparison to 180 degree rotation):

Imagine a tasting of 12 ports and jdaw1, DRT and PhilW in attendance. The tasting set might come off the printer in the following order:

jdaw1 placemat1
jdaw1 placemat2
jdaw1 tastingnote1
jdaw1 tastingnote2
DRT placemat1
DRT placemat2
DRT tastingnote1
DRT tastingnote2
PhilW placemat1
PhilW placemat2
PhilW tastingnote1
PhilW tastingnote2

If, instead, blank sheets were inserted in the following configuration, printing the placemats double-sided would result in alternate-facing tasting sets:

jdaw1 placemat1
blank
jdaw1 placemat2
blank
jdaw1 tastingnote1
blank
jdaw1 tastingnote2
blank
blank
DRT placemat1
blank
DRT placemat2
blank
DRT tastingnote1
blank
DRT tastingnote2
PhilW placemat1
blank
PhilW placemat2
blank
PhilW tastingnote1
blank
PhilW tastingnote2

[PhilW]

Should I mention my suggestion that the cork display sheet should include origami folding lines to allow the base sheet to be manipulated into a number of rectangular areas with dividers, to prevent the corks from being able to roll out of their areas...? (and I thought the "cork display sheet", while fastidiously and fabulously implemented [of course!], was itself a tongue in cheek suggestion...)

[PhilW]

Imagine a tasting of 12 ports and jdaw1, DRT and PhilW in attendance.

.... followed by imagining the three of us in A&E I think!

[DRT]

I would like to challenge the notion that inserting a named sheet between each person's placemat set is wasteful.

The full set for a large tasting now comprises many different elements. Each of those elements has a particular temporary purpose:

>> placemat sheets are useful for the duration of setting up and executing the tasting
>> tasting note sheets are useful while tasting and (unless lost) up to the point where the TNs are typed
>> decanting sheets are each useful during decanting of a single bottle
>> pouring sheets are useful during the pouring of each bottle
>> decanter label sheets are rarely used
>> place name sheets are useful until everyone sit down
>> cork sheets are useful up until the point when people start stealing corks
>> placemat separator sheets would be useful whilst setting up the table

I agree that all of the above have varying degrees and durations of usefulness, but all of them eventually become redundant. Some are redundant in a few minutes, some in a few hours, but all are helpful during the period they are used.

Imagine a tasting of 12 ports and jdaw1, DRT and PhilW in attendance.

.... followed by imagining the three of us in A&E I think!

Agreed. We might die of thirst unless there are 15 bottles.

[jdaw1]

In practice the duplex idea is unlikely to be robust. Students of the code will recall

Code: Select all

		<< /ImagingBBox null  /Duplex false  /PageSize [PageWidth OuterMarginL OuterMarginR add add  PageHeight OuterMarginB OuterMarginT add add]  >> setpagedevice

yet printers seem quite willing to ignore the /Duplex false.

Derek’s list of sheets is somewhat unfair. Not all of these are always useful. But those known to be redundant aren’t generated. There is at least the intention that all produced sheets are useful. And even if the wastage of 13 sheets of paper is small relative to the general consumption, how well would it fix the problem?

Indeed, please state exactly what the problem is.

Edit: I would be willing to try the Jog and OutputFaceUp flags, described on page 418 of the PostScript Language Reference Manual 3.

[jdaw1]

I'd suggest that the [x y] scales should be of the same proportion (which they are either not, above, or you have additional column gaps which I don't believe you don't intend if they are). So for the example you are creating, with proportionate scales the elements would be [ [0 4] [2 4] [4 4] [6 4] [0 2] [3 2] [6 2] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ].

In most other layout designs I have adopted the general principle of using the whole page. For example, in the placemats for the Star Quality tasting, observe the small gap between the columns the constraint on circle size was y not x. If this code scaled the two directions the same, then typically there would two large gaps, either left and right, or top and bottom.

Or have I misunderstood what you are advocating?

[RAYC]

Indeed, please state exactly what the problem is.

The process of separating the tasting mats/note sheets at the last tasting set-up was felt to be rather too slow and an easier/quicker way was sought.

I'm not sure i saw it as a problem, or at least i'm not sure i saw it as a problem that should be solved through the code rather than sticky tabs.

[jdaw1]

That code fragment has been updated to

Code: Select all

		<<
			/OutputFaceUp DefaultOutputFaceUp 4 index {not} if  /Duplex false
			/ImagingBBox null  /PageSize [PageWidth OuterMarginL OuterMarginR add add  PageHeight OuterMarginB OuterMarginT add add]
		>> setpagedevice

this starting with two things on the stack, the lower of which is the rotation boolean.

[DRT]

Indeed, please state exactly what the problem is.

The process of separating the tasting mats/note sheets at the last tasting set-up was felt to be rather too slow and an easier/quicker way was sought.

I'm not sure i saw it as a problem, or at least i'm not sure i saw it as a problem that should be solved through the code rather than sticky tabs.

We have all missed the obvious solution. The problem, however small, was caused by the fact that the last sheet of one person's placemat is not obviously different to the first sheet of the next set when flicking through the pile of sheets. Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

[jdaw1]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

[DRT]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

Perhaps that is why I perceived the set provided for this tasting to be a problem.

[jdaw1]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

Perhaps that is why I perceived the set provided for this tasting to be a problem.

That would be these placemats, exhibiting exactly the same default behaviour, would it? Unless Rob’s faffing caused the problem.

[DRT]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

Perhaps that is why I perceived the set provided for this tasting to be a problem.

That would be these placemats, exhibiting exactly the same default behaviour, would it? Unless Rob’s faffing caused the problem.

User error.

[jdaw1]

Printing each person's placemat followed by their tasting note sheets solves that problem completely.

Which has been the default behaviour for some years.

Perhaps that is why I perceived the set provided for this tasting to be a problem.

That would be these placemats, exhibiting exactly the same default behaviour, would it? Unless Rob’s faffing caused the problem.

User error.

One might think that the solution is to prevent such faffing. But the anti-faffing technology

uses A3 paper. When paper sizes are different, all of one is printed, then all of the next, to simplify control of the printer. Which brings us back to the same problem, for which the 180° technique is the best solution yet available. (E.g., 15 Dec 2011, The Bell.)

[jdaw1]

I'd suggest that the [x y] scales should be of the same proportion (which they are either not, above, or you have additional column gaps which I don't believe you don't intend if they are). So for the example you are creating, with proportionate scales the elements would be [ [0 4] [2 4] [4 4] [6 4] [0 2] [3 2] [6 2] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ].

In most other layout designs I have adopted the general principle of using the whole page. For example, in the placemats for the Star Quality tasting, observe the small gap between the columns the constraint on circle size was y not x. If this code scaled the two directions the same, then typically there would two large gaps, either left and right, or top and bottom.

Or have I misunderstood what you are advocating?

However, I do agree that it would be neater if the two A1s touched. But how should that be expressed that in the parameter?

[PhilW]

I'd suggest that the [x y] scales should be of the same proportion (which they are either not, above, or you have additional column gaps which I don't believe you don't intend if they are). So for the example you are creating, with proportionate scales the elements would be [ [0 4] [2 4] [4 4] [6 4] [0 2] [3 2] [6 2] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ].

In most other layout designs I have adopted the general principle of using the whole page. For example, in the placemats for the Star Quality tasting, observe the small gap between the columns the constraint on circle size was y not x. If this code scaled the two directions the same, then typically there would two large gaps, either left and right, or top and bottom.

Or have I misunderstood what you are advocating?

I could have been clearer; quick diag:


- If you draw radius 1 circles with the co-ordinates you specified as centre locations, you get the overlapping circles as shown in top left.
- If you draw radius 0.5 circles with your centre co-ords you get large spaces between columns, as per top right.
- You can achieve what I assume you intend as per middle left, but only by the x and y axes being non equal; if you make the axes equal (i.e. equal indices per inch) then you get the diagram at the middle right. Effectively you are not drawing circles in x,y (though you are drawing them in transformed axes).
- All I was suggesting was that to keep things simple for the user, using axes with equal indices to physical spacing would be simpler. The alternative co-ords I suggested with radius 1 circles generates the bottom left image, effectively identical to the mid-left which I assumed was as intended, but with equally spaces axes.
(minor note, I made the radii 0.95 rather than 1 for all the above to provide a little separation, if we're being precise )

[Alex Bridgeman]

That code fragment has been updated to

Code: Select all

		<<
			/OutputFaceUp DefaultOutputFaceUp 4 index {not} if  /Duplex false
			/ImagingBBox null  /PageSize [PageWidth OuterMarginL OuterMarginR add add  PageHeight OuterMarginB OuterMarginT add add]
		>> setpagedevice

this starting with two things on the stack, the lower of which is the rotation boolean.

I have come up with a possible alternative approach that could cope with either faffed output (ie. all tasting mats together, all notes sheets together) or unfaffed output (ie. tasting mats and notes sheets printed as a set for each person). Provided the parameter NumberOfSheetsPerPerson is known then a possible approach that has not been discussed yet would be for the person applying the output from the PS programme to count the bloody sheets as they are being laid out.

Are we not in danger of calling for a working group meeting just to open another bottle of T77?

[jdaw1]

a possible approach that has not been discussed yet would be for the person applying the output from the PS programme to count the bloody sheets as they are being laid out.

Yes, but could DRT do that without complaint?

[jdaw1]

- If you draw radius 1 circles with the co-ordinates you specified as centre locations, you get the overlapping circles as shown in top left.
- If you draw radius 0.5 circles with your centre co-ords you get large spaces between columns, as per top right.
- You can achieve what I assume you intend as per middle left, but only by the x and y axes being non equal; if you make the axes equal (i.e. equal indices per inch) then you get the diagram at the middle right. Effectively you are not drawing circles in x,y (though you are drawing them in transformed axes).
- All I was suggesting was that to keep things simple for the user, using axes with equal indices to physical spacing would be simpler. The alternative co-ords I suggested with radius 1 circles generates the bottom left image, effectively identical to the mid-left which I assumed was as intended, but with equally spaces axes.
(minor note, I made the radii 0.95 rather than 1 for all the above to provide a little separation, if we're being precise )

So, in your scheme, if the user wants to fill the page radius as large as possible the user has to know the paper size, the margins, and solve the quadratic. Hmmm: me no like. Typically we want to say ‟these in the same column, these in the same row, and these between that other column|row”. My scheme allows that.

Also, though I am applying a scaling factor to the user’s [x y] parameters, the circles will still be circles.”  I’m spreading them over the page.

”  Which is why the radius equation is a full quadratic, rather than an elementary square root.

[DRT]

a possible approach that has not been discussed yet would be for the person applying the output from the PS programme to count the bloody sheets as they are being laid out.

Yes, but could DRT do that without complaint?

I am starting to feel like a Scottish Conservative Party candidate trying to win a seat in a general election. Perhaps I should form a coalition with Rob and say that I have have been a firm believer of using little sticky labels between each set all along?

[jdaw1]

Scottish Conservative Party candidate trying to win a seat in a general election

User error.

[jdaw1]

Extra reasoning for PhilW. If a user wished to have some arrangement of circles, on some paper size, that used all the available space, how should the user specify that? Bear in mind that the centres have x values from MgnL+Radius to PageWidth”“MgnR”“Radius, and that the user does not at this time know the Radius.

My view is that the user may specify circles over arbitrary x and y ranges, and that then a radius will be computed and an affine transformation applied to the centres.

[PhilW]

Extra reasoning for PhilW. If a user wished to have some arrangement of circles, on some paper size, that used all the available space, how should the user specify that? Bear in mind that the centres have x values from MgnL+Radius to PageWidth”“MgnR”“Radius, and that the user does not at this time know the Radius.

My view is that the user may specify circles over arbitrary x and y ranges, and that then a radius will be computed and an affine transformation applied to the centres.

I think we're talking at cross-purposes - I don't disagree with anything in your last two posts; The only change I was suggesting was that in specifying the indices for the arbitrary arrangement, that I would have naturally used values for the y co-ordinate which were scaled by a factor of two compared with those you had used; the diagrams were intended to illustrate why. I agree that the user should not be consider page sizes, margins or quadratics in providing the arrangement.

[jdaw1]

Are you saying that the code should scale x and y by the same factor?

[PhilW]

Are you saying that the code should scale x and y by the same factor?

No (although that could be a further option were a sparse design required) I was only suggesting that (for an arbitrary design) I would find it simpler to specify the [x y] pairs as if they represented co-ordinates of the centre of circles drawn on an equally spaced grid with equally spaced axes; and then you then fit that pattern of circles with appropriate circle sizing, spacing etc as best fits page/margin criteria as usual.

[jdaw1]

No (although that could be a further option were a sparse design required) I was only suggesting that (for an arbitrary design) I would find it simpler to specify the [x y] pairs as if they represented co-ordinates of the centre of circles drawn on an equally spaced grid with equally spaced axes; and then you then fit that pattern of circles with appropriate circle sizing, spacing etc as best fits page/margin criteria as usual.

Your answer appears to be self-contradictory. I am too deeply puzzled to continue without some pseudo-code from you. Given the array, and a usable W and H (they being page dimensions less margins), what happens next?

[PhilW]

No (although that could be a further option were a sparse design required) I was only suggesting that (for an arbitrary design) I would find it simpler to specify the [x y] pairs as if they represented co-ordinates of the centre of circles drawn on an equally spaced grid with equally spaced axes; and then you then fit that pattern of circles with appropriate circle sizing, spacing etc as best fits page/margin criteria as usual.

Your answer appears to be self-contradictory. I am too deeply puzzled to continue without some pseudo-code from you. Given the array, and a usable W and H (they being page dimensions less margins), what happens next?

I don't think I'm suggesting any change to the next steps, I was only ever intending to help clarify the initial indexes so am reluctant to jump in with code... however since asked, I would expect the next steps to be (probably roughly as currently?) along the lines of:

Code: Select all

pattern_width=(max(x[1..n])+1) - (min(x[1..n])-1)
pattern_height=(max(y[1..n])+1) - (min(x[1..n])-1)
scale_x = W/pattern_width
scale_y = H/pattern_height
realx[1..n] = scale_x * x[1..n]      // (but see *note)
realy[1..n] = scale_y * y[1..n]      // (but see *note)
max_circ_dia_x = 2*scale_x
max_circ_dia_y = 2*scale_y
if max_circ_dia_x > max_circ_dia_y then circ_dia = max_circ_dia_y else circ_dia = max_circ_dia_x

*note: this scaling only works if min(x)-1==0 and min(y)-1==0 and otherwise would need the appropriate offset taking into account; I have omitted this for clarity.

thereby creating a list of [realx,realy] centred circles with diameter circ_dia

Hope that helps; I have a feeling that the confusion between us is probably something very simple which would be worked out in about 10sec face to face with a piece of paper... it might be better simply to ignore me for now - I wasn't suggesting something significant, it was supposed to be a minor clarification for ease of use!

[jdaw1]

Thank you. Typically I want the radius to be as large as possible. I think that you assume that the radius, on at least one of the scales of the user, is unit. In easy rectangular cases that won’t overly tax a user, but in general isn’t so good. E.g., [ [0 2] [2 2] [1 1] [3 1] [0 0] [2 0] ].

[PhilW]

Thank you. Typically I want the radius to be as large as possible. I think that you assume that the radius, on at least one of the scales of the user, is unit. In easy rectangular cases that won’t overly tax a user, but in general isn’t so good. E.g., [ [0 2] [2 2] [1 1] [3 1] [0 0] [2 0] ].

True, I was indeed assuming a unit radius for the layout specification and your counter-example shows the problem of overlapping. With the centre-points specified, it would still be necessary to test largest valid radius to avoid overlap (with/without spacing).

[jdaw1]

My code would then choose the radius and separately scale the x and y directions such that things fit as snugly as possible, obviously subject to the other upper bounds on the radius.

With the centre-points specified, it would still be necessary to test largest valid radius to avoid overlap (with/without spacing).

Are we disagreeing?

[PhilW]

My code would then choose the radius and separately scale the x and y directions such that things fit as snugly as possible, obviously subject to the other upper bounds on the radius.

With the centre-points specified, it would still be necessary to test largest valid radius to avoid overlap (with/without spacing).

Are we disagreeing?

Maybe not, if you can resolve this for me:
Test1 : [0,0] [1,1] [2,1] [3,0]
Test2 : [0,0] [2,2] [4,2] [6,0]
Test3 : [0,0] [2,1] [4,1] [6,0]
How would the above three examples differ in final rendered appearance?
I think (hope) you can the desired pattern achieved; if any of the above differ, which spec would the user be expected to supply, and why?

[jdaw1]

Test1 : [0,0] [1,1] [2,1] [3,0]
Test2 : [0,0] [2,2] [4,2] [6,0]
Test3 : [0,0] [2,1] [4,1] [6,0]
How would the above three examples differ in final rendered appearance?
I think (hope) you can the desired pattern achieved; if any of the above differ, which spec would the user be expected to supply, and why?

‟They ought to be the same”, I thought. And then tested them, and they were the same. Is that happiness?

[PhilW]

Test1 : [0,0] [1,1] [2,1] [3,0]
Test2 : [0,0] [2,2] [4,2] [6,0]
Test3 : [0,0] [2,1] [4,1] [6,0]
How would the above three examples differ in final rendered appearance?
I think (hope) you can the desired pattern achieved; if any of the above differ, which spec would the user be expected to supply, and why?

‟They ought to be the same”, I thought. And then tested them, and they were the same. Is that happiness?

Am both pleased and surprised; happiness and silence is achieved.

[jdaw1]

Phil,

[ [0 2] [2 2] [4 2] [6 2] [0 1] [3 1] [6 1] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ]

However, I do agree that it would be neater if the two A1s touched. But how should that be expressed that in the parameter?

Idea!

Currently the array contains items of the form [ x y ]. Perhaps, also allowed, could be [ x y x1 y1 ]. As now, glasses are placed at (x y), and then the code chooses

the radius and separately scale the x and y directions such that things fit as snugly as possible, obviously subject to the other upper bounds on the radius.

The radius chosen, those of the new form are then moved along the straight line from (x y) to (x1 y1), as far as possible without crashing into another circle. This will be done pairwise, each circle being moved a proportion p along the line, p chosen to be the lesser of 1 and first crash. Each circle will be moved the least of its pairwise p’s. (This is robust and simple, but wouldn’t handle complicated sequences of possible collisions.)

So [ [0 2] [2 2 3 2] [4 2 3 2] [6 2] [0 1] [3 1] [6 1] [0 0] [3 0] [6 0] ] would make the two A1s touch.

Objections?

[DRT]

I have no wish to prolong this, but I disagree that it would be neater if the two A1s touched. The image in the above post shows four glasses spaces on the top line that are evenly spaced. That is neat. Four glasses spaces on a line that are unevenly spaced would be less neat.

[jdaw1]

I disagree that it would be neater if the two A1s touched. The image in the above post shows four glasses spaces on the top line that are evenly spaced. That is neat. Four glasses spaces on a line that are unevenly spaced would be less neat.

Imagine that 0 = 1963, 1 = 1966, 2 = 1970. The touching is to bring together the two shipper-A 1966s (perhaps different sizes or different bottlers). Obviously if the four bottles in the top row had relationships to each other that were of the same type, such as all being different vintages, then equal spacing would be better.

[jdaw1]

The radius chosen, those of the new form are then moved along the straight line from (x y) to (x1 y1), as far as possible without crashing into another circle. This will be done pairwise, each circle being moved a proportion p along the line, p chosen to be the lesser of 1 and first crash. Each circle will be moved the least of its pairwise p’s. (This is robust and simple, but wouldn’t handle complicated sequences of possible collisions.)

The simple algorithm has the advantage of simplicity. Can better be done?

As an example, let the pattern include [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 1 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ], and that the ellipses include circles much closer to each other, such that the three circles shown aren’t initially touching, and by a good margin. Then there are multiple solutions: for example, any of the three could land at (0, 0). And what about [ ! [-1 0 0 0] [0 2 0 0] [0 -1 0 0] ! ]?

Algorithm suggestions welcomed.