[r-t] Method extension

[Philip Saddleton]

On 29/04/2015 22:36, Mark Davies wrote:
[ ... some good stuff ... ]
> Hmm. I think we need to step back and try and clear the fog!
> So let's take Little Bob Minor. The normal extension to the Major 
> seems good, but it's not the only way to do it. There doesn't seem to 
> be much wrong with hunting the treble to 6th's instead (of course this 
> is currently named Gainsborough). There doesn't seem to be much wrong 
> with adding a hunt bell and making a Little Bob Triples method 
> (3.1.7.147.1.147.7.1 - currently unrung!). 
yes there does - but you can make Little Grandsire Triples
> The current Central Council Decisions do however give the standard 
> extension for Bristol straight off
not from Major to Royal
> I suspect that PABS's conceptually purer system (which I really like 
> the sound of) will do exactly the same thing.
It does - but it is not really an algorithm (except that it limits the 
possible extensions to a given stage to a finite number, assuming that a 
limit is put on the way the lead can extend), so in principle could 
generate an exhaustive list. I see it more as  an overall requirement 
that specific algorithms limited sets of method should follow.

I don't think that there should be a requirement to name a method that 
happens to be an extension the same as the parent, unless that extension 
path has already been chosen by methods at different stages being given 
the same name.

PABS