Re: an LM update

[James E. Bailey]

Am 23.03.2009 um 15:54 schrieb Graham Percival:
> > In any event, hopefully this is an acceptable patch. Whether or not
> > introduction of single-staff polyphony should be kept at this  
> > point in
> > the LM (since doing so does not follow Documentation policy) is a
> > different conversation.
>
> The patch looks fine to me on technical grounds.  I'm not wild
> about this in terms of Documentation policy, but this isn't up to
> me.  :)

I also think that removing the section and having the concept  
introduced for the first time in 3.2 is also acceptable. I just think  
that not discussing it in the LM is a bad idea. But yeah, 3.1 and 3.2  
could use some work.