[r-t] Anything Goes vs Peals Mean Something
Richard Smith
richard at ex-parrot.com
Mon Aug 11 00:10:34 UTC 2008
Mark Davies wrote, in reply to me:
> OK, here's the latest. I don't know, you might like this!
>
[...]
>
> 3. In a two-stage peal, the structure of the composition should make clear
> which changes are treated at which stage.
I take it all back. I do like this. It makes it clear that
we don't like the idea of isolated rows from being picked
out willy-nilly. But equally, it doesn't actually proscribe
it.
So, ignoring the fact that singles and triples are not
adjacent stages, this doesn't actually disallow the false
triples example, but it does make it pretty clear that we
don't like it and probably wish it were disallowed.
Is that a fair summary?
I still don't like your adjacent stages restriction, but
that's a separate issue.
RAS
More information about the ringing-theory
mailing list