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

[Don Morrison]

On Fri, Aug 8, 2008 at 5:03 PM, Mark Davies <mark at snowtiger.net> wrote:
> 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.

Excellent. You and I appear agree on this. You want there to be a
class of methods called Dixons'es. It would make good sense, just as
you seem to be implying, to partition the one universe of all methods,
including those that do not fit the Norwich Axioms, into classes, much
as we do today. We do need a class for "everything that doesn't fit in
one of the class we have another name for" but that's easy enough to
define, though coming up with a suitable name may be awkward.

It's unfortunately that Dixon's will need a class appended, since
Dixon's without a class would be a principle (according to current
naming schemes, which it would be silly to upset), but that seems a
small price to pay for some valuable continuity.




-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
Es brillig war. Die schlichte Toven
        Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben;
Und aller-muemsige Burggoven
        Die mohmen Raeth' ausgraben.
    -- Lewis Carroll, _Through the Looking Glass_, tr. Robert Scott