[Groovy] refactor

[jrappen]

• re-write syntax
  • bump syntax to v2, replace pop: true with pop: 1
  • move syntax variables to EOF
  • test base scope in syntax test file
  • make capturing groups non-capturing where applicable
  • add section markers to syntax file
  • move wordlists in matches to their own variable
  • fix shebang scope & add tests
  • fix regexp in slashy strings
• fix metadata
  • add scope-pairs to fold settings
• add default language settings
• add default keymaps
• add build files

---

• addresses [RFC] Add new scopes to "jumping" flow control keywords/statements. #1228 (keyword scopes)
• addresses [Regular Expression] Unified scope names for (embedded) Regular Expressions #1942 (regexp in slashy strings)
• addresses [Groovy] use more specific sub-scopes for keywords #4051 (more specific keyword scopes)

Co-authored-by: deathaxe [email protected]
Co-authored-by: Keith Hall [email protected]
Co-authored-by: Michael B. Lyons [email protected]

[michaelblyons]

• I would not have removed the .groovy suffix in all those test lines.

• I am uneasy about the if scope simplification, etc. If we ever come to a conclusion on [RFC] Add new scopes to "jumping" flow control keywords/statements. #1228, Groovy should be updated to match. This may not be the place to discuss that change, though.

  If that's the only outstanding issue, I'd approve. Edit: Keith notes [Groovy] use more specific sub-scopes for keywords #4051

• Do you want to embed an extended Regex with interpolations while you're in here? ([Regular Expression] Unified scope names for (embedded) Regular Expressions #1942)

• If you're making this sregex-compatible, do you want me to link you from the meta issue? Remove Incompatible Regex Patterns #481

[jrappen]

I'll take a look through your suggestions later, got most on my TODO anyway. Going step-by-step with the free time I have.

[michaelblyons]

Why do the optional arrays have \b at the end? Won't that basically never match?

[jrappen]

That's what the match had before this PR where it matched all "primitive types"-words.

I haven't looked into every single match in the syntax, yet. Started with tearing apart word-lists to add more granular scopes.

Pretty sure this isn't the only one that currently doesn't work.

[michaelblyons]

Right. I know this wasn't your doing. Just wanted to flag. 🙂