[r-t] Poll on consecutive blows in the same position

Graham John graham at changeringing.co.uk
Sun Dec 28 13:36:59 UTC 2014

MF wrote:

> Regardless of other considerations, I do think that
> a call should be able to add rows as well as alter
> or remove them.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on this one, Matthew, as it
introduces a whole new set of "what was rung" problems. 

Consider a composition of Spliced. We customarily say how many changes we
have rung of each method and whether it is all the work. Introducing
additional rather than replacement changes as calls, and you would have to
count the number of changes of each call in addition to each method, so they
sum to the performance length. Would you then want to ring atw of each call?
Also what exactly would distinguish a call from a method? When considering
each of these issues, I find it helpful to step back and think what is the
simplest solution. I have done this again with this question and while
earlier arguing for option C, I have concluded that not only is their value
in these methods, but also option D is the simplest way of defining them.
While that means that London and Cambridge S Minor and staggered rotations
would therefore be defined as different Maximus methods, it is a whole lot
simpler to describe what was rung, and once you start getting into the
definition of Don's pair dodging plus a stationary bell (btw that's a good
term, Richard) plus a Doubles method, it becomes even more obvious that this
is the better way forward. It will be very easy to analyse the method
libraries and show where a Maximus method is London beside Cambridge, or has
one or more stationary bells. 


More information about the ringing-theory mailing list