[r-t] Extensions and calls acting on more than one row

Philip Earis Earisp at rsc.org
Wed Oct 27 11:04:30 UTC 2004

Richard: "I've already got a program to do this...I'm more than happy to
make the source code of this avaliable and/or put it on the web as a CGI
script if either of these would be helpful"

I think putting a CGI script online would be a super idea.

Andrew Craddock: "perhaps the MC's time might be productively spent in
preparing a suite of test cases which could validate Richard's (or
anyone elses) software."

I think Chelsea Delight Minor and Thursday Maximus are the usual test
cases :-)

Anyway, all this talk of Grandsire and the helpful consultative methods
committee makes me want to ask a question that has been puzzling me:

I think it's fair to say that most people agree that a call is not part
of the definition of a method. Indeed, CC Decision (E)-A-2 says:

"A call is a means of passing from one course of a method to another. It
is effected by altering the places made between two or more consecutive
rows, without altering the length of a lead. It is not part of the
definition of the method."

So why don't the Decisions change so that a call can only act over one
row?  This is surely logical, and would instantly solve several
problems.  I might have written this on a beer mat when I was drinking
with PABS the evening before the recent committee meeting for him to
take along, but I can't remember.


This communication (including any attachments) is intended for the use of the addressee only and may contain confidential, privileged or copyright material. It may not be relied upon or disclosed to any other person without the consent of the RSC. If you have received it in error, please contact us immediately. Any advice given by the RSC has been carefully formulated but is necessarily based on the information available, and the RSC cannot be held responsible for accuracy or completeness. In this respect, the RSC owes no duty of care and shall not be liable for any resulting damage or loss. The RSC acknowledges that a disclaimer cannot restrict liability at law for personal injury or death arising through a finding of negligence. The RSC does not warrant that its emails or attachments are Virus-free: Please rely on your own screening.

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list