[r-t] Method extension

Andrew Johnson andrew_johnson at uk.ibm.com
Fri May 1 07:55:47 UTC 2015

> From: Philip Saddleton <pabs at cantab.net>
> Date: 01/05/2015 07:33
> I don't think that there should be a requirement to name a method that 
> happens to be an extension the same as the parent, unless that extension 

> path has already been chosen by methods at different stages being given 
> the same name.
That's sensible. If M8 extends to Ma10, Mb10, Mc10, but Ma10 somehow is 
the 'best' extension, then ringing Mc10 before Ma10 shouldn't force the 
extension path to be Mc=M.

If a method has been rung at two different stages then how much choice is 
there with extension paths?

> That could be accommodated by allowing a line to have length zero. But
> I don't think it is desirable - you could then add a totally unrelated
> piece of work, e.g. a wrong place section to a right place method.
I agree with this, though I'm happy with a method 'contracting' to another 
method with the loss of a piece of work.

Where it gets slightly tricky is internal versus external places. If you 
have a parent method on stage n with a place at the back at n then if you 
extend the method and keep the place at n then you create some new work 
above. You aren't inventing new place notation, but the effect is 

E.g. PB Minimus -> Little Bob Minor.

Andrew Johnson
Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU

More information about the ringing-theory mailing list