[r-t] Naming methods & compositional devices

[Graham John]

RAS wrote:

> But for some commonly rung methods you could end up with quite a long
list, e.g.

I don't agree with the approach of attaching all calls to a method
definition. It would be a nightmare to maintain and would have little value,
as you would always have to say which subset you are using. For this reason
calls are part of the composition, not the method.

> "unless otherwise noted in the methods collection, the standard bob for
> a seconds place single-hunt method is 14, and the standard single is
1234".

Nevertheless, defining default calls for groups of methods does make sense,
since compositions don't then have to state which calls are used. This is
current practice, except that the CC has removed definitions of bobs and
singles from the decisions. I think that this can easily be remedied in a
descriptive way, but in a definition of standard calls, not methods.

> These days, peals of Maximus almost always have either a 1234 single, a
> 18 big bob at before, or perhaps a 1T (plain hunt) lead end so that they
> can come round in the middle of the tenth course instead of ringing ten
> whole courses.

The only problem with the current decisions here is that " A call is a means
of passing from one course of a method to another." If this definition is
amended to include "or to another part of the same course", then a 1T call
can be used in Cambridge Max rather than the unnecessary use of Primrose.
Also you could jump to another part of a lead if you wanted. This would
allow you to ring a rotation of Brian Price's 5090 Cambridge S Major, for
example.

Ted's suggested provisional list of peals not conforming to CC decisions
could be dramatically reduced by creating a catch-all class for any
"unclassifiable methods". A new type of method is just put into the
catch-all class, and is documented as such in the libraries (with just name
and stage as its title - although its name must be unique against
principles). If, enough methods of this new type are rung, then the methods
committee could propose a new class name to be added into the title, at a
later date. 

A separate category, naming convention, and notation for rule based
constructions (dixonoids) should also be agreed, so that they can be
included in the libraries.

Leigh said:

> There's a lot to be said for gradual reform and small steps in the right
direction.

These are simple changes to decisions / definitions that shouldn't screw up
several hundred years of change ringing literature and custom, yet take us a
big step further in the right direction.

Finally, we must accept that the majority of the CC will be uninterested in
technical changes to decisions, whereas the members of this list are.
Therefore, I suggest that we formulate a set of changes, document them on a
website, peer review them with members of this list, and for those were we
have reached a consensus, ask the MC to support a proposition for change. 

Graham