[r-t] Descriptions (was: A date to pencil ...)

[Alexander Holroyd]

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015, Graham John wrote:

> While ringing London Minor over Cambridge Minor seems fairly
> straightforward, there are many more bizarre examples. For example, what if
> the front six ring Rounds for six blows before ringing Cambridge Minor, and
> later a method is rung on the middle six while the front and back four ring
> Plain Bob Minimus, then Grandsire Doubles is rung on the front five while a
> bell lies in sixths while another method is rung on the back six.


Writing
> down what was rung without resorting to a string of place notation for the
> whole performance gets tricky.

And yet it would appear that you managed to do just that in the above 
paragraph above.  What is wrong with that description exactly as it 
stands?

> In the definitions, this requires a statement that one method and only one
> method is ever rung at any point in time (i.e. per row).

No it doesn't.  As long as a sequence of rows is rung, why shouldn't a 
band describe it in whatever way they want?