Add support for multi-line types in jsdoc. (updated)

[duckbrain]

Requirements

• Filling out the template is required. Any pull request that does not include enough information to be reviewed in a timely manner may be closed at the maintainers' discretion.
• All new code requires tests to ensure against regressions

Description of the Change

This is fork of #515, changing the style as requested by @50Wliu. Note, the other requested change on that MR appears to have already been done by @ribrdb.

Support for multi line types in jsdoc.
See microsoft/TypeScript-TmLanguage#467

And here's an example file with multi-line types:
https://github.com/google/closure-library/blob/master/closure/goog/dom/animationframe/animationframe.js#L61

Alternate Designs

I don't know of any.

Benefits

Multi line types are correctly highlighted.

Possible Drawbacks

Unterminated types are not recognized as invalid. I couldn't figure out any way to maintain that. However you can clearly see that the type runs on longer than you're expecting if you forget the closing }, so I don't think that's a major issue.

Applicable Issues

[rsese]

Thanks @duckbrain! I'm not sure if you've seen, but since #515 was initially opened, we've been migrating from our old first-mate grammar engine to the new Tree-sitter engine. This will enable a number of new features, more consistent syntax highlighting, and better performance, among other benefits. In order to free up our limited resources, we have decided to stop maintaining the first-mate grammar when there is a built-in Tree-sitter grammar available as is this case here with JavaScript.

Since this PR applies only to the first-mate grammar we're going to close this out but please let us know if we've misunderstood anything and thanks again for your contribution.

[SamB]

@rsese: So the TypeScript-TmLanguage folks should probably stop sending people with changes for the jsdoc grammar your way.

I guess I'll go suggest an additional comment on the relevant portion of TypeScript.YAML-tmLanguage...

[rsese]

@SamB - yes, we're not prioritizing issues across language repositories that are TextMate specific when a Tree-sitter grammar exists for that language.