NR: explain that \type shouldn't be used in derived and midi contexts

NR: explain that \type shouldn't be used in derived and midi contexts

[janek, 2013-09-07 10:24:54]

duplicate because i had problems with git-cl

[janek, 2013-09-07 10:27:45]

sorry, an unrelated patch got entangled previously

[janek, 2013-09-07 10:29:51]

Please review.

This could probably use some rewording, but i just wanted to write down what i
have learned.

See "midi doesn't work with custom Voice contexts" on -user.

Janek

[dak, 2013-09-07 11:06:31]

https://codereview.appspot.com/13578045/diff/4001/Documentation/notation/chan...
File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):

https://codereview.appspot.com/13578045/diff/4001/Documentation/notation/chan...
Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely:1194: context.
That puts out conflicting information since some lines above it is stated
"This should always be @code{Engraver_group}."

The section needs to make clear that it is written with the example of a \layout
definition in particular, establishing that there are multiple kinds of output
definition, mentioning when something is only specific to \layout, and make
clear that one needs to extend output definitions for all kinds of output one
actually wants to generate.

But in this form, conflicting information is given in relation to a use case
that is not the topic of this section, without putting it in context well enough
that people actually know what and why they are supposed to be doing.

[janek, 2013-09-15 10:28:44]

On 2013/09/07 11:06:31, dak wrote:
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/13578045/diff/4001/Documentation/notation/chan...
> File Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely (right):
> 
>
https://codereview.appspot.com/13578045/diff/4001/Documentation/notation/chan...
> Documentation/notation/changing-defaults.itely:1194: context.
> That puts out conflicting information since some lines above it is stated
> "This should always be @code{Engraver_group}."
> 
> The section needs to make clear that it is written with the example of a
\layout
> definition in particular, establishing that there are multiple kinds of output
> definition, mentioning when something is only specific to \layout, and make
> clear that one needs to extend output definitions for all kinds of output one
> actually wants to generate.
> 
> But in this form, conflicting information is given in relation to a use case
> that is not the topic of this section, without putting it in context well
enough
> that people actually know what and why they are supposed to be doing.

This was superseded by https://codereview.appspot.com/13251045