[r-t] History

Don Morrison dfm at ringing.org
Fri Jun 6 18:51:05 UTC 2014

In, I believe, arguing the "it's better to leave peals the sometimes extents
or multiples of extents" point of view, Andrew Johnson wrote:
> Well I do - it clutters the definition of a peal

I'm sorry to be dense, but I'm not following this assertion at all. How is

"A peal is 5,000 or more rows."

more cluttered than

"A peal is 5,000 or more rows if you're ringing major or above,
but a multiple of exactly 5,040 rows if you're ringing triples,
unless it's variable cover, in which case it's 5,000 or more, or
a multiple of 720 that is 5,040 or larger if you're ringing minor,
or a multiple of 120 that is 5,040 or larger if you're ringing doubles,
with other possible complications for mixed stage peals."?

Or did I misinterpret the position you were taking?

Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
"There are people who embrace the Oxford comma, and people who
don't, and I'll just say this, never get between these people
when drink has been taken."  -- Lynne Truss, _Eats, Shoots & Leaves_

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list