[mycroft]

So, I've used Gordon Bower's CCE card for the old ACBL convention card for years. It takes 10 minutes now to fill in the card, run the compiler over it, post it online and print it off - almost faster than filling the card out by hand (and you don't get my handwriting!)

I decided I had way too much time on my hands wanted to learn more about LaTeX and the tikz image-creation program, and decided to "convert" the drawing to the new card.

Uh, well, no. The only things I kept were some of the suit commands, and the basic structure (checkboxes as booleans, text fields as \newcommands). Oh, and the "which card do I lead" function. That's a nightmare, and still Just Works. It's 99+% new.

I'm sure it's awful, and probably has some fairly serious issues, and clearly Not Ready For Release, but I'm basically yak-shaving at this point. So - release, and find out from the community what is the real problems and what is just my whackamole reaction to perfectionism.

If you're interested in a different way to fill out the ACBL convention card, with benefits of ease-of-change and ability to use source control for history that comes from plaintext source rather than a picture, and the "benefits" of using LaTeX, please investigate my ACBL convention card editor.

Yeah, I know the licensing is screwy. The intent is to do the equivalent of "form protected A when filled out" - you own the data in the card source and nobody can legally change it; "I own" the template (and am happy to have you fill copies out) and drawing (and am happy to consider changes/fixes/whatever). It's even better when the ACBL owns the copyright in the card itself...

I know there are LaTeX people out there, and I know blackshoe was looking to learn. Enjoy. If someone wants to raise this over on the Other Site, I wouldn't be upset (I don't have an account there, for Reasons. Reasons that make a lot less sense with, you know, this repository being public, but still.)

[mycroft]

Thanks for the note - and the reblog.

For the person who noticed the transfers were broken - that's fixed. Thanks!

For Gerardo: I appreciate the idea and the patch. I really did not want to make that a one or the other thing, so wrote an alternative (that puts numbers in boxes, if desired) that would allow either (or both, if you're creative. I don't think it's the best idea to be creative, but ah well. If you could look at it and see if it solves your issue, I'll go ahead and throw it in; but as it's an issue that I don't have, I don't want to automatically say "my solution is right".

[Gerardo]

It looks good to me. Thank you!

[mycroft]

Okay, will add.

I'm a little on the fence about "too many options confusing things". First, while I understand the reason people say this, I'm in the "no, give me the options, I want it to work my way" camp. Second, this is LaTeX; if you're going down this path at all, it's because you don't mind a little confusion for the benefits it gives you. But third, this is LaTeX; it's not clear what is going on without lots of effort (or lots of comments), and adding stuff that guaranteed will confuse or cause extra effort to ignore is yet another hindrance.

But I've got two or three of those in there already; as long as it's obvious where the options are, a couple more - especially this one which I have frequently seen, so it's not just a one-off - seem okay to me.

Just as a side note, if you care - if there are changes that are "only for you", you can stick them in the \additionaltikz section - even to the point of writing over what's there and putting in what you want over top of *that*.

[mycroft]

and done.

Note: the newcommands added require addition into the created cards. There's an upgrade script for that - and the comment explaining how to use it.

Thanks for trying it, and thanks for the idea!

[blackshoe]

I'll take a look. Thanks, Mycroft. :-)