[r-t] Methods Committee proposed proposed changes

[Graham John]

Glenn wrote:

> I have no strong opinions about the notion of permitting methods that are
> false in the plain course. Without introducing a whole new pallet of descriptive
> baggage, however, is it intended that there be some annotation in the method
> collection to draw attention to this fact, as a failure to do so could theoretically
> result in someone accidentally selecting such a method to ring on its own
> for a peal?

Yes. It is intended to flag this up in the collections. In any event,
you have to pick a true composition to a method whether the method is
true in its plain course or not, so I'm not sure it makes that much
difference. Even in Minor, not all methods currently in the collection
give a true extent with the standard callings.

Graham

On 21 March 2017 at 09:46, Glenn Taylor <gaataylor at blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> I have no strong opinions about the notion of permitting methods that are false in the plain course. Without introducing a whole new pallet of descriptive baggage, however, is it intended that there be some annotation in the method collection to draw attention to this fact, as a failure to do so could theoretically result in someone accidentally selecting such a method to ring on its own for a peal?
>
> Glenn
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> ringing-theory mailing list
> ringing-theory at bellringers.net
> http://lists.ringingworld.co.uk/listinfo/ringing-theory