runtime(java): Improve the recognition of the "style" method declarations Commit: https://github.com/vim/vim/commit/a4c085a3e607bd01d34e1db600b6460fc35fb0a3 Author: Aliaksei Budavei <0x000c70@gmail.com> Date: Wed Apr 24 21:04:25 2024 +0200 runtime(java): Improve the recognition of the "style" method declarations - Request the new regexp engine (v7.3.970) for [:upper:] and [:lower:]. - Recognise declarations of in-line annotated methods. - Recognise declarations of _strictfp_ methods. - Establish partial order for method modifiers as shown in the MethodModifier production; namely, _public_ and friends should be written the leftmost, possibly followed by _abstract_ or _default_, or possibly followed by other modifiers. - Stop looking for parameterisable primitive types (void<?>, int<Object>, etc., are malformed). - Stop looking for arrays of _void_. - Acknowledge the prevailing convention for method names to begin with a small letter and for class/interface names to begin with a capital letter; and, therefore, desist from claiming declarations of enum constants and constructors with javaFuncDef. Rationale: + Constructor is distinct from method: * its (overloaded) name is not arbitrary; * its return type is implicit; * its _throws_ clause depends on indirect vagaries of instance (variable) initialisers; * its invocation makes other constructors of its type hierarchy invoked one by one, concluding with the primordial constructor; * its explicit invocation, via _this_ or _super_, can only appear as the first statement in a constructor (not anymore, see JEP 447); else, its _super_ call cannot appear in constructors of _record_ or _enum_; and neither invocation is allowed for the primordial constructor; * it is not a member of its class, like initialisers, and is never inherited; * it is never _abstract_ or _native_. + Constructor declarations tend to be few in number and merit visual recognition from method declarations. + Enum constants define a fixed set of type instances and more resemble class variable initialisers. Note that the code duplicated for @javaFuncParams is written keeping in mind for g:java_highlight_functions a pending 3rd variant, which would require none of the :syn-cluster added groups. closes: #14620 Signed-off-by: Aliaksei Budavei <0x000c70@gmail.com> Signed-off-by: Christian Brabandt <cb@256bit.org>

#define vim_mask_icon_width 32
#define vim_mask_icon_height 32
static unsigned char vim_mask_icon_bits[] = {
   0x00, 0x80, 0x01, 0x00, 0x00, 0xc0, 0x03, 0x00, 0xfc, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f,
   0xfc, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f, 0xfc, 0xff, 0xff, 0x7f, 0xf8, 0xff, 0xff, 0x7f,
   0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x7f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x1f,
   0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x0f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x07, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x0f,
   0xf8, 0xff, 0xff, 0x1f, 0xfc, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f, 0xfe, 0xff, 0xff, 0x7f,
   0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xff, 0xfe, 0xff, 0xff, 0x7f,
   0xfc, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f, 0xf8, 0xff, 0xff, 0x1f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x0f,
   0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x5f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x7f,
   0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f,
   0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x3f, 0xf0, 0xff, 0xff, 0x7f, 0xd0, 0xe1, 0xdf, 0x1c,
   0x00, 0xc0, 0x43, 0x00, 0x00, 0x80, 0x01, 0x00};