Let rhythmic-engraver make its articulation-or-event decision based on current listeners (issue 6098050)

[graham]

LGTM


http://codereview.appspot.com/6098050/diff/2001/Documentation/changes.tely
File Documentation/changes.tely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6098050/diff/2001/Documentation/changes.tely#newcode170
Documentation/changes.tely:170: Another consequence is that string
numbers and right hand fingerings on
IMO each @item should be self-contained, and multi-paragraph items are
the way to go if there's multiple implications of a single change.
Could this (and the previous @item) just be additional paragraphs (i.e.
remove the @item).

http://codereview.appspot.com/6098050/diff/2001/Documentation/notation/fretted-strings.itely
File Documentation/notation/fretted-strings.itely (left):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6098050/diff/2001/Documentation/notation/fretted-strings.itely#oldcode103
Documentation/notation/fretted-strings.itely:103: @warning{String
numbers @strong{must} be defined inside a chord
awesome change.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6098050/diff/2001/Documentation/notation/fretted-strings.itely
File Documentation/notation/fretted-strings.itely (right):

http://codereview.appspot.com/6098050/diff/2001/Documentation/notation/fretted-strings.itely#newcode521
Documentation/notation/fretted-strings.itely:521: \new Voice \with {
\override StringNumber #'stencil = ##f } {
our vague almost-certainly-unwritten guidelines on lilypond formatting
would suggest that the \override should be on a newline, but I can't be
bothered to complain about this.

http://codereview.appspot.com/6098050/