[r-t] Minor Blocks: Poll results

[Dale Winter]

\unlurk

> 
> I would be interested to hear from any who haven't commented yet, but voted
> "no", as to their reasoning.


Didn't vote or comment, but would have voted no.

Reason is that I suspect uniqueness of naming is a red herring. I already want a naming system to do a lot (be simple, have good consistency with historical practice and how people actually ring things, apply to a nice large class of "methods"). My guess is that it just isn't possible to set up rules which do all that and also give unique names, and that any attempt to force the matter will just tie us in knots. Can't prove it, though, and would be interested to be told I'm wrong?

The other point, perhaps, is that I don't understand the importance of forbidding people from doing stupid things, rather than just sniggering at them if they do. Why is it a problem if someone really wants to name the method "twice through plain bob minor"? I don't think many of us would take the footnote very seriously, but I'm also unsure what actual harm it does. I might regard Tim's Option B as good practice in most cases, but am not sure why we need rules about it.

Dale

\relurk



On Jul 18, 2014, at 12:58 PM, Graham John wrote:

> I am surprised that so many voted no to Q: "Do you think a lead should
> always be the minimum non-divisible block?". Given that most of us (based
> upon the earlier poll) would like to treat methods that are false in the
> plain course as methods rather than non-method blocks, requiring that all
> methods are defined by the shortest piece of notation is essential to avoid
> the same thing being given different names. 
> 
> I would be interested to hear from any who haven't commented yet, but voted
> "no", as to their reasoning.
> 
> Graham
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://bellringers.net/mailman/listinfo/ringing-theory_bellringers.net