[r-t] Various replies

[Richard Smith]

Philip Saddleton wrote:

> Robin Woolley said  on 15/01/2005 12:46:
>
> >Finally, looking at Richard Smith's two files, one thing leaps off the page.
> >Double methods need no longer be double! How does the Exercise at large feel
> >about this?
>
> A bug in Richard's software, presumably?

Indeed.  Sorry about that.

> There's another one: some extensions by four stages are equivalent to
> those by two, in particular where there is plain hunting below the treble.

I was vaguely aware of that, but as it was just causing some
extensions to be listed twice, rather than producing invalid
extensions or loosing valid ones, I hadn't got around to
fixing it.

Richard