[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods

[Graham John]

On 20 April 2017 at 16:58, Iain Anderson <iain at 13to8.co.uk> wrote:

>  This is where the classification system fails.  It may well be a hunter
> under the current definitions, but nobody rings it like that.  The front
> eight do one bit of work, the back four do something else.  Thinking of it
> as a method with 9 and 10 as the hunt bells is such a strange way of
> thinking about it.  Why would we want to hold on to a classification system
> that forces us to think of things in such an unnatural way?

The classification system is based upon properties of methods. I don't
see that any of the classes tell you how to ring a method. Nor should
they, as some people may ring methods by blue line, others by rules,
others by grids and others by place notation.

The point I was making is that you either keep a classification system
and apply it consistently, or you get rid of it altogether. That would
have a number of significant consequences. What we could do, however,
is make some small modifications to the classification system,
particularly where they do not affect too many methods. For example,
there are only 133 Hybrid and only 18 Differential Little Hybrid
methods at the moment, so a change to that group would have a
relatively small impact. Any suggestions of a good way to do it are
welcome.

Graham