[r-t] Does a rotation by any other name smell as sweet?

[Iain Anderson]

Graham John wrote:
> Tim wrote:
>
>> I'd echo some previous posts and say let's keep
>> the existing rotation ban...
> Careful. It is not banning rotations. It is just saying that we don't need
> different names for rotations of a method.
>
So if they are not banned, are they allowed?
I think we all agree that they are not needed, but then neither are 
singles in Stedman Triples.  Sometimes things that we don't need can 
still be useful.
Surely the main reason for insisting on a canonical name for all 
variations is that we are confident that no one will ever come up with 
an example where allowing alternative names is more useful and/or desirable.

Iain Anderson