[r-t] Reverse methods

Richard Smith richard at ex-parrot.com
Fri Aug 4 14:53:02 UTC 2006

Don Morrison wrote:

> On 8/4/06, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:
> > Except with principles, there is no requirement for the
> > reverse of a method to be called Reverse <whatever>.
> Is the reverse (ouch) of this true? Can I call an abitrary, unrelated
> to anything else method "Reverse Bumbershoot", or even "Reverse
> Bristol"?

Yes, absolutely.


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list