[r-t] Adjacency in Extension

[Mark Davies]

Don writes,

> Amusingly, this seems the most Kent-like of the various “extensions” you
> quote, and yet is the only one you assert is prohibited.

I tend to agree with this. I think the other extensions Robin gave do 
have merit, and certainly the extension processes used to produce them 
work well for other methods, but it must be said that Windsor does look 
more like Kent than Obnoxious does. So the "adjacency rule" doesn't seem 
to be doing much very useful here.

I think any rule like this is a bit suspect. A place that is adjacent to 
the treble, or occurs at lead or lie, may be forced to do so on lower 
numbers. We might even want to start from Minimus where there is no 
space to avoid adjacency. But that shouldn't mean that, as we expand to 
higher numbers, methods related by extension shouldn't be able to take 
advantage of the greater space that becomes available.

Basically, the external places/adjacency properties can be seen just as 
the degenerate case for a method when rung on small enough numbers of bells.

MBD