[r-t] What is a 'regular' method

[Richard Smith]

Ian McCulloch wrote:

> I'm a bit confused now.  What is the correct terminology for the well-known 
> 41 surprise minor methods?

I think the point is that there isn't a single, unambiguous 
term to describe them.  Graham is suggesting that 'regular' 
ought to be defined so the that 41 are the only regular 
surprise minor methods.  There's certainly something to be 
said for having a simple word to mean the usual 'nice' 
properties we want of a method, though I'm not sure 
'regular' is the right word.

RAS