[r-t] What is a method? (long message, sorry)

Mark Davies mark at snowtiger.net
Fri Aug 8 21:03:39 UTC 2008

Don writes,

> If we follow, as many seem to be implicitly doing, path (a) above, we 
> shoot ourselves in the foot. We are condemning anything that does not meet 
> the restricted use of "method" to a different name space. For example, 
> there is nothing today to prevent me from ringing a new principle, 
> completely unrelated to what we all know of as Dixon's, and calling it 
> Dixon's.

Err, and what's the problem with that Don? It doesn't stop the rule-based 
Dixons from being called Dixons. As you said, it's in a different namespace. 
We already have plenty of examples - Oxford Treble Bob and Oxford Surprise. 
So Dixon's Surprise and Dixon's Dixons.

If you put them in the same namespace, then you have the problem the other 
way around. A band from Cambridge who invented a new Dixonoid might want to 
call it Cambridge. And why shouldn't they?


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list