[r-t] The null change

[John Harrison]

> > I'm not convinced that ringing things in whole pulls is the same as
> > allowing use of the null change.

I would go along with that, as I think would the vast majority of ringers.

> It's not the same, but null changes in a method allow you to do it
> (and name the result as a distinct method).

Is there any merit in naming Whole pull Cambridge anything other than Whole
pull Cambridge?  I think the answer is the same whether you apply the
test above (what the mass of ringers would think) or one of mathematical
purity.  A whole pull is not just an arbitrary division bigger than a
row and less than a peal, it is fundamental to the act of ringing,
whether on tower bells or handbells.  It is also enshrined in the music
for the vast majority of ringers in the form of the open lead.

The whole pull wouldn't have the same significance (apart from the open
lead) of you played methods on a keyboard or tapped them on handbells, but
is it reasonable to craft the core definitions around such peripheral
imitative performances?

-- 
John Harrison
Website http://jaharrison.me.uk