Doc, EG: LilyPond's getting too smart for the "Inline Scheme code" section

Doc, EG: LilyPond's getting too smart for the "Inline Scheme code" section

The "Inline Scheme code" section already was embarrassing enough
during its last revision, when a trivial syntactic change was all that
was required in order to have the stated problem go away without
requiring to revert to Scheme.

Since then, the situation has further deteriorated: the originally
"what we would like to do but it fails" example works entirely
unchanged without a hitch.

[Trevor Daniels, 2013-09-19 16:23:54]

Hhm.  I think I'd prefer this whole section to
be commented out (with an explanation) until 
someone can think of a convincing example.
Why continue to explain to users how to do 
something they will now quite likely never need 
to do?

Trevor

[dak, 2013-09-19 16:44:53]

On 2013/09/19 16:23:54, Trevor Daniels wrote:
> Hhm.  I think I'd prefer this whole section to
> be commented out (with an explanation) until 
> someone can think of a convincing example.
> Why continue to explain to users how to do 
> something they will now quite likely never need 
> to do?
> 
> Trevor

Because this section is an introduction for the cases where one _does_ need
Scheme?  Those cases will always be around, and just because LilyPond now is
easier to use, we are not doing people favors by removing working documentation.

It's not that the stuff in this section does not work.  It's just that this
particular case _can_ be done without Scheme.  And it's better to explain this
with a simple example that does not actually require using Scheme than not
explaining it at all.

The EG is covering too little ground already.