[r-t] Practical Extension

[Tim Barnes]

On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 12:01 PM, Richard Grimmett <richard at grimmett.org>
wrote:

> Are you saying there is much less significant improvement to be made on
> what was there already than previously thought?
>

It's more that there's no panacea on this.  I consider the framework to
have many improvements -- terms are defined, performance lengths are
standardized, non-method blocks removed, no arbitrary limits on what can be
a method, unified treatment of cover bells, unified requirements for naming
a new method, no limits on consecutive blows in the same place, recognition
of things like Dixon's, jump changes and identity changes, single
definition of truth across all stages and lengths, examples and diagrams
included throughout, etc.  And while the changes to classification and
extension are limited, I view these as a step in the right direction, and,
esp for extension, probably a step in a multi-step process.

But many of these individual changes have their detractors, and when you
add these up across all changes, you probably end up with quite a large
number who aren't happy.  I don't think this is anything we didn't already
know -- this is mostly highlighting that there isn't going to be a eureka
moment when nearly everyone agrees we've found the ideal solution.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20180801/119cd58f/attachment.html>