[r-t] Reverse methods
Fred.Bone at dial.pipex.com
Fri Aug 4 16:39:17 UTC 2006
On 4 Aug 2006 at 10:15, Don Morrison said:
> 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"?
There's nothing in the Decisions to prevent you from doing so. Indeed,
there's nothing in the Decisions to prevent you from calling some new
method "Reverse Yorkshire", or something equally misleading.
Except, of course, for the last clause of (E).D.4 ...
More information about the ringing-theory