Support for Hindustani style bols for pakhawaj and tabla.

It uses the same konnakol / solkattu framework, but of course the match is not perfect. I don't know how much difference because I don't know much about Hindustani, but at least these things:

• Structures are different. At least there is simple x3 in tihais, though they seem to think of them as simply x3 rather than seq (gap) seq (gap) seq.
• On the other hand, there's a notion of structured variation that doesn't seem to be present in Carnatic. It may be too ad-hoc to usefully notate. variation by taking from one place and adding to another. I have incomplete similar notions for Carnatic in combinators like "varying" and replacements, but those things are probably better done on the fly than notated.
• Hindustani thinks of gaps as "only the space" rather than "karvai stroke and space". This means that "dha.__4" would look like 5 matras from a Hindostani point of view.
• Notion of kali is in Hindustani, but not clear if it could have any useful notation presence.
• Talas are all different. At the least they need different ruler symbols.
• Stricter relationship between bols and strokes. I can probably have a single hardcoded stroke map, but beyond that I don't need to realize to strokes at all for reading. It would still be useful for machine realization. However, there is at least some variation between instruments, e.g. tabla typically doesn't use the "chapu" stroke, so pakhawaj dha is like thom + chapu while tabla is like thom + din. When realizing bols on mridangam, I can use the pakhawaj style.