[r-t] Candidate definition #10

[Don Morrison]

> This seems to mean, obviously wrongly that every bell shall strike in
> exactly one of the rows in the block, i.e. not more than one row and
> thus there is only one row in the block! Why not say "Every bell strikes
> exactly once in each row and no bell strikes except as part of a row"?
> This would also deal with your wish to stop the tenor dinging a few
> times on its own between blocks.

Yes, I think that would be better. Thanks!

> "One or more bells may ring in the same position in each and every row"
> of a block.
>
> To me this implies that one or more bells may remain in the position
> where they started and stay there throughout the block. In relation to
> the last position in the row that defines cover as we know it but it
> precludes variable cover.

No. If it's a variable cover the bell ringing at the back is *not* the
same bell all the time, and so it is not a non-changing bell. A
variable cover is included with the other bells within the block for
purposes of determining truth and completeness, just like the
Decisions today require. It is only factored out completely if it
never varies.

If we're ringing variable cover minor, say, the stage of the *block*
(or fragment, or whatever it's called) is 7, even though the stage of
the method generating the rows that constitute that block is 6. This
is why someone (Iain perhaps?) was uncomfortable with using the word
"stage" for this attribute of a block.

> However, it does allow for more than one
> position to be "covered" i.e. the treble could "cover" the first
> position in the row while the tenor covers the final position, and they
> do that throughout the block.

This is deliberate.




-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"I've always thought one should boo musicians [who] omit repeats."
                                              -- Sviatoslav Richter