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

[Tim Barnes]

> Matthew:
> I think I have only one more point on rotations: If we decide rotations
should be allowed to be named, should we then tie that to the decision on
leads that are multiples?
> (recall: that was left after deciding they should be allowed to be
separately named without being conclusive over exactly *how* they would be
allowed to be separately named - possibly as a canonical definition +
variations).

Agree we left that as an open question.  My thoughts are that it's better
to keep different questions as separated as possible, to keep things as
simple as possible.

I'd therefore suggest we first get an answer on rotations, and then
separately come back to whether there should be some form of grouping or
linking in the Method Collections of methods that are related in some way -
e.g. by lead divisibility, reversal, place notation inversion, rotation, or
possibly even subset (as in Erin's place notation is a subset of Stedman's).

TJB