[r-t] RE: Exceptions to the Extension Rules

[Graham John]

Robin wrote:

> I've been looking at recent msgs. abt. extension exceptions and
> think some can be explained as follows:

As far as I am concerned the explanations of why the anomalies occurred are
of minor importance, although of some historical interest. Neither am I
interested in blaming the successive Methods Committees for their existence.
However, I would like to see an analysis of the method collection
undertaken, so that all cases of such anomalies can be documented and made
widely available.

Encapsulating the decisions in software provides an ideal mechanism for
achieving this, in addition to providing a reliable means to name a new
method correctly. If this exercise is not carried out, the same questions
will get raised time and time again. The list of anomalies can also help the
MC consider whether some further changes to the decisions would be
beneficial.

Thank you for your contributions, there are some new ones to me, such as the
double/non-double problem of Duffield and Forward. Please keep them coming. 

Here is a summary of what we have to date:-

Group 1. Valid extensions with different names

- Glasgow S Major, Clyde S Royal, Strathcylde S Maximus
- Leatherhead S Major, Maximus, Fourteen, Sixteen, Kegworth S Royal
- Reverse Carter Doubles, Birmingham Carter Triples, Caters, Cinques
- Plain Bob on even numbers, Grandsire on odd numbers
- Plain Bob on odd numbers, Grandsire on even numbers
- Arlesey Bob Minor, Mirror Bob Major

Group 2. Invalid extensions with the same name

- Rutland S Major vs Royal
- Bristol S Major vs Royal upwards
- Lincoln S Minor vs Major
- Superlative S Minor vs Major
- Original on odd numbers vs even numbers
- Plain bob on odd numbers vs even numbers
- Grandsire on odd numbers vs even numbers
- Carter Doubles vs Triples, Caters, Cinques
- Duffield Major vs Royal, Maximus
- Forward Minor vs Major, Royal
- Anglia Alliance Royal vs Maximus?

Group 3. Incorrectly named reversals

- Heywood vs Aston Major