[r-t] Minor Blocks

[Matthew Frye]

On 1 Jul 2014, at 03:52, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 9:58 PM, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> And then to whether 2 leads of Cambridge can be named as a
>> separate method to Cambridge, etc.
> 
> If someone is daft enough to want to do so, it doesn't seem worth
> either the effort, or the cost (for example, your treble to Morning Star
> example), to stop them.
...
> If that happens,
> what harm has been done, to whom?

I suppose the only real "harm" would be the non-uniqueness of descriptions of plain leads. The more I think about it, I think that much though the "non-divisible" rule seems a sensible goal in general, there are enough edge cases that become a bit silly to make a good idea no longer worthwhile.

Perhaps the decisions could have some kind of subjective power for the methods committee to be able to change how a method is recorded if they think it is better understood as a fraction (or multiple) of its notation. Perhaps that's not really needed.

MF