[r-t] Survey #3: One-lead courses. Results.

Matthew Frye matthew at frye.org.uk
Wed Oct 15 15:35:37 UTC 2014

On 15 Oct 2014, at 16:08, Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 15, 2014 at 10:27 AM, Tim Barnes <tjbarnes23 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 5. Can't have the null change
> It's worth noting that this isn't just an issue for methods, it is
> also an issue for calls.
>> 6. Can't be a rotation of another method

> I think a rotation may have to affect ... where we put calls.

Both points raise issues with calls. They're both valid issues to raise, but I'm not sure if/where calls fit into Tim's considerations. As always I think it's important to be clear about exactly what we're all talking about and if we should be considering calls at all at this stage. I personally think we probably need a more clear definition of a call* before we can really meaningfully discuss those points. In particular the point about rotations and where you put calls is pretty much moot unless you tie calls to division ends or half-leads.


* FWIW my currently preferred 'definition' is something minimalistic along the lines of "A call is any variation to the standard flow of changes of a method." And then elsewhere you could have a descriptive classification of common types of call. Somewhere in here there's also a fun can of worms to be opened with Doubles Variations...

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list