[r-t] Definitions so far

[Richard Smith]

John Harrison wrote:

>> We could define a row as just a sequence of bells, and an ordinary or
>> simple row as one in which each bell rings once and only once.
>
> Sounds a sensible compromise, but once you remove the constraint that each
> bell strikes once you need to define the length (assuming it is intended to
> stay the same)?

The length is the number of rows rung.  If you're deal with 
non-ordinary rows, it'll depend how the rows are defined, 
and I'm happy to leave that all as somebody else's problem. 
In the usual form of cylindrical, an n-bell rows still 
comprises n blows, but not by different bells.  But if it 
would make people happier, you could assume that in the 
definition of 'row': an n-bell row is a sequence of n blows. 
An ordinary row is a row in which each bell strikes once and 
only once.

RAS