[r-t] Method extension

[Philip Saddleton]

On 28/04/2015 04:33, Philip Earis wrote:

> Before long there would be a clamour to hard-code some arbitrary 
> preferences (like the length of the lead must remain constant, or must 
> extend with stage, or whatever) into the extension rules.  And before 
> long you'd end up with a heavily parameterised mess, like the current 
> Decisions, that would continually introduce new loopholes and problems 
> (like with extending the method where the treble plain-hunts to n-1th 
> place).
>
There are two separate issues here:

- what should be the relationship between methods at different stages 
for one to be considered an extension of the other?

- what requirements should there be on the naming of methods that depend 
upon such a relationship?

So far I have only considered the first. You seem to be arguing that 
because there might be difficulty with the second then we shouldn't try 
to address either. I don't see that that would be an improvement.

What, if anything, should replace (E)D.3?
(a) seems reasonable, providing that the possible relationships are 
wide-ranging enough, and this is what I have been trying to achieve. Can 
anyone suggest a plausible extension construction that is not covered by 
my proposal?
(b) is more difficult, particularly if the number of possible 
constructions is increased. Short of having software that will generate 
all possible constructions and determining which have been named, how 
can one determine whether a new method has to be given the same name as 
an existing one? I would replace this by something to the effect that a 
method should be given the same name if it is related by the same 
construction as has already been used to name an extension. There is 
still the small possibility that this is not unique, in which case 
either could be chosen. [This is also a possibility with the existing 
Decision: what if Yorkshire Royal and Maximus had been rung, and the 
extension of Albanian Royal to Southwark Maximus was chosen - what would 
Yorkshire Major be called?]
(c) is also a problem if extensions by a single stage is permitted: 
Ashford Little Bob Minor would be 36.16-14-14-16 if this is retained. 
I'm not sure what the answer to this is, as I would prefer the 
construction to be independent of the type of method.

PABS