[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods

[Graham John]

Tony Cox writes,

> The idea that a `method' can contain complete plain courses
> of another method embedded in it seems completely wrong to me.

We want to describe what is rung rather than proscribe. This will mean
that more silly things will be possible, but other methods will be
useful. In the case of methods false in a lead and adjacent repeated
place notation, the main beneficiaries will be Minimus ringers, as
they have been ringing a lot of methods for years that could not be
added to the method libraries, or were more recently consigned to be
non-method blocks. It would be even sillier to have to describe some
of these constructions as spliced using Cross Differential.

Graham