Improve with_prototype to better match Sublime. Fixes #101

[trishume]

I did a bunch of testing and figured on the details of Sublime's with_prototype behaviour around cases like described in #101.

This PR implements a fix that:

1. Corrects the order I was iterating with_prototypes in the stack. It is now bottom to top like Sublime.
2. Doesn't use with_prototype contexts from stack frames lower than the last frame pushed by a with_prototype rule.

This reduces the number of failing syntax tests to 162 for ASP, 1 for LaTeX, and everything else passes. Previously ASP had 202 failing tests, fixing the order only got that down to 183. PHP also used to have 40 failing tests, although that jumped to 104 when I fixed the order, but that was just further exposing the other bug that when fixed brought it down to 0 failures. So this fixes #101 but not yet #59.

TODO

• Test what this does to Difference in highlighting some TypeScript React files (Sublime vs. Syntect) #97. Edit: NVM the Typescript syntax mentioned doesn't even use with_prototype.
• Benchmark for significant performance regressions. Edit: no regression.

cc @keith-hall

[robinst]

Nice! Is there some description of the sublime-syntax format that we can expand to add this information? Would be good to have a better description of how they work, for future us but also other implementers.

[trishume]

@robinst There's https://www.sublimetext.com/docs/3/syntax.html, but it's written for syntax-writers, not implementers. So it heavily underspecifies a lot of things. It's not easy to submit updates, and if it was it wouldn't be the right place.

Maybe a .md file in the Sublime packages repo, or on the wiki of that repo, would be the right place. Or even in syntect's repo or wiki. I guess the source of syntect itself kind of documents every known behaviour, even if it is spread out.