[r-t] False methods

[Andrew Johnson]

> From: Mark Davies
> 
> In response to Andrew:
> 
> 3. The only construction which remains under the "block" category is the 

> single-lead method. If these are to be treated as methods then we need 
> to have a consistent approach to classifying them.
> 
> MBD
Actually I think the only block constructions are ones which don't meet 
this: "No bell shall lead or lie continuously for the entire plain course 
of the method."

So consider this plain course:
X58X14.58X58.36.14X14.58X14X18X14X58.14X14.36.58X58.14X58X12X58X14.58X58.36.14X14.58X14X18X14X58.14X14.36.58X58.14X58X12

It is a round block 64 changes long, rather false, but is divisible into 
two parts giving this lead:
X58X14.58X58.36.14X14.58X14X18X14X58.14X14.36.58X58.14X58X12

My reading of the decisions says:
It has 8 hunt bells.
It is a differential hunter.
The primary hunt is the treble which is treble dodging.
It is a surprise method.

Perhaps 3,4,5 etc. lead round blocks of this then give different methods 
each to be named differently even though the basic lead is the same.

Do we yet have a program for automatically fully classifying blocks of 
changes? Resolving name conflicts could be complex as it involves method 
extension and other method names (for reverse, double, single). I know 
many things could change over the next year but seeing the effect of 
changes will be important.

Andrew Johnson




Unless stated otherwise above:
IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number 
741598. 
Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6 3AU