[r-t] method extension

[Don Morrison]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2018 at 11:13 AM Graham John <graham at changeringing.co.uk>
wrote:
> I have come to the conclusion that apart from some areas that could
> be improved by tweaking, the processes are sound and on the whole
> generate good extensions.

While I have never gotten my head around the details, based on the
arguments I have followed I think this may depend upon your definition of
“sound.”  While it may generate good extensions in most cases, there are
plenty of arguably worthwhile extensions it prohibits. One easily followed
poster child in this regard was Penultimus, but it is not alone.

> broadening what can be considered an acceptable extension actually
> makes things more difficult, as can be seen with hunt methods
> without Plain Bob Leadheads

I think you may have things a little backwards here. Including methods with
non-Plain Bob lead heads is not “broadening” what “can be considered an
acceptable extension,” it is merely eliminating an arbitrary restriction to
“only certain kinds of methods can have family names.” That is a very
different issue than allowing more possible extensions mechanisms for
methods of an already supported type.

We are unfortunately in a situation where “but we don’t know how to extend
them” could be used as an argument for disparaging interesting types of
methods. I don’t think that is happening explicitly, but I wonder if it
doesn’t at least contribute in subtle ways to ringers’ surprising
reluctance to try something different?



-- 
Don Morrison <dfm at ringing.org>
“The zest in our favorite meat recipes always comes from the spices,
not from the meat. There is a fundamental biological reason for this.
Meat isn’t spicy because meat can move.”
                   — Thor Hanson, /The Triumph of Seeds/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://bellringers.org/pipermail/ringing-theory/attachments/20180724/779f3629/attachment-0001.html>