[r-t] Blocks to be renamed as methods

[Graham John]

On 20 April 2017 at 22:07, Richard Smith <richard at ex-parrot.com> wrote:

> [Some ideas on classification]

I think Richard's proposals are worth evaluating further.

It seems to me that the main area that is of concern is where "Little"
is involved. Many of the link methods end up being classified as
Little because they have one or more hunt bells, often not the treble,
and this results commonly in Little Hybrid. Making hunters where the
hunt bell doesn't reach the front unclassified might help with this.

The majority of Alliance methods, however, have Plain Bob Leadheads,
and even where the treble is not hunting or dodging, the
classification of these where the hunt path is not Little seem fine.
There are around 150 Alliance methods with the Yorkshire Alliance cats
ears, as Don points out, for example. A more detailed analysis of the
100 or so Little Alliance methods may show whether changes here would
be beneficial, but I'm not convinced currently (other than Little
methods excluded as above). At least in the case of Gluon, the hunt
bell is the treble.

We have discussed non co-prime differentials before and had already
excluded them from being Differential Hunters in the Descriptive
Framework. These means that the short course Surprise Royal methods
are then ordinary Surprise Royal methods, not differential.

Removing Hybrid as a class has merit, particularly if Little is
dropped when there is no hunter class. I think that this, the non
co-prime differentials change, and not classifying little methods
where the hunt bell doesn't reach the front would make a big
improvement to link methods, and also resolve nearly all the perceived
problems with single lead methods.

I do not agree with allowing the use of class names where it would be
ambiguous, as it would only be a matter of time before someone named a
principle "Duck Surprise Major". Where a class has been removed, such
as Hybrid, then I see no problem with optionally incorporating them
within the name. It probably makes sense for true hybrids like half
Bristol, half Double Norwich to retain Hybrid within their names, and
actually most Hybrids are currently like that.

Removing Slow Course as a class (as per the Descriptive Framework) is
OK as a simplification given that it has little value as a class, but
as there are a lot of them, incorporating Slow Course into the name of
those already named would be appropriate.

Graham