Josh Goebel

Bullet list of issues we'd need to solve: - not all grammars use `keywords` - sometimes there are good reasons for this - even of those that do, not all...

You need to properly escape your HTML: `>` not `

What does the `_t` supposed to symbolize anyways? I always thought it was "type", hence this made a lot of sense...

> However, I'd now like to create a regular expression to replace ADDITIONAL_TYPES. This isn't necessary, as compression will clean up much of the "wasted" space... and the readability aids...

> True, true, but I'm not sure it has any impact on the speed for instance. With the types added that Konrad suggested, it's quite a list now (92 items...

And now I'm wondering if all this couldn't be done with a small amount of glue and tiny change to ResumableMultiRegex to allow the ranges of regex eligible for matching...

@schtandard How much would this help with LaTex? Would this solve all the problems we were having there?

I think there is a potential problem with optionals where `end` is holding the mode open. At first I thought that optionals could just all be include in the multi-regex...

I'm thinking it should be separate - ie if you want "could be multiple things" you use `contains` and if you want STRICT sequential, you use `sequence`, and we do...

> I can't fully follow the multi-regex stuff and am guessing that this is the reason for my confusion on the following comments: It's just a lot of glue/magic around...