docs: add asm-lsp

[WillLillis]

Hi! Would it be possible to add asm-lsp to the docs?

I wasn't super sure what to list for the selectors in the configuration. Checking the selector on my test files (see samples/ in the project's repo) yielded text.plain. I tried finding a more comprehensive lists of scopes to use a more assembly-specific scope, but the best I could find was this stack overflow post. The post listed source.disasm, but I struggled to find a file that used that. I tested the configuration as-is and it works, but I'm happy to change anything if I've made a mistake :)

[jwortmann]

A quick search on the Package Control website lists NASM x​86 Assembly and x​86 and x​86_64 Assembly as two popupar syntax highlighting packages for assembly languages, and they use the scope names source.assembly and source.asm. I do think that text.plain should be removed, so I would probably use "selector": "source.asm | source.assembly", assuming that files highlighted by the mentioned syntax packages are applicable for this LSP server.

Disclaimer: I'm not very familiar with assembly, and those syntaxes aren't applied to the .s file extension from the sample files by default, so there may possibly be more suitable alternatives (?)

The h2 heading is supposed to be the language name, so I would probably put ## Assembly there instead of ## ASM LSP (if another asm server gets added to the docs in the future, we can add another subheading with the server names).

[rchl]

BTW. based on this search I would guess that the server doesn't care about the language ID.

[WillLillis]

I would probably use "selector": "source.asm | source.assembly"

After installing the two packages you linked the selector for the file showed up as source.asm.x86_64. The highlights were also applied to the files. Thanks!

The h2 heading is supposed to be the language name, so I would probably put ## Assembly there instead of ## ASM LSP

Makes sense! Sorry about that

[WillLillis]

BTW. based on this search I would guess that the server doesn't care about the language ID.

That would be correct. I've contributed a couple features to the server recently and we don't have any strict language requirements. :)