[r-t] Grandsire singles and the Decisions redux

[Don Morrison]

A message from Matthew Frye on a different matter just tipped me off
to the root cause of some confusion. And that there is a need, I
think, for Mark Davies to update his Norwich Axioms.

You may recall that a day or two ago I commented on both the Council's
Decisions and the Norwich Axioms seeming to my reading to not cover
Grandsire singles as one call, but rather having to view it as two
consecutive calls.

The version of the Decisions that Mark quotes in his presentation of
the Norwich Axioms reads

  "(E) A. 2. A call is not part of a method, but is a means of passing
  from one course to another. It is effected by altering the places
  made between two consecutive rows, without altering the length of a
  lead."

He carries that over unchanged into the Norwich formulation. And was
the reading on which I was basing my question. I should have known to
go back to the original source.

If you look at the current Decisions as presented on the Methods
Committee site this instead reads

  "(E) A. 2. A call is a means of passing from one course of a method
  to another. It is effected by altering the places made between two
  or more consecutive rows, without altering the length of a lead. It
  is not part of the definition of the method."

I presume it was changed at some point after when Mark posited the
Norwich Axioms, possibly with Grandsire singles as its motivation.

I think the Norwich Axioms probably need to be updated, or at least
have their presentation updated, based on the current Decisions.


-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"Enum is actually a generic class defined as Enum<T extends Enum<T>>.
This circular definition is probably the most confounding generic type
definition you are likely to encounter. We're assured by the type
theorists that this is quite valid and significant, and that we should
simply not think about it too much, for which we are grateful."
           -- Ken Arnold and David Holmes, _The Java Programming Language_