With that, any editor that supports Language Servers can use those to provide better support to a language without implementing any details.
In this case, you can see some of the supported editors in the README itself: https://github.com/bash-lsp/bash-language-server#clients
The idea is also not new - python has had docstrings since the 90s. They never thought to show the full definition on hover or autocomplete, probably because it's noise most of the time, but a lot of people seem to like it.
You write a grammar in json and it gets compiled to a shared library via C.
LSP is _the_ way to write IDE integrations in the modern era.
(I maintain LSP tooling for F# and actively support at least half of the editors above)
There are also many different display/view methods that more sophisticated LSP implementations can implement. In my own LSP, we have different 'views' of the signatures/types/docs for
* hovers * signature completion * detailed type-level embedded docs in a separate pane
to name a few. It's entirely customizable.
If you're angry about it, feel free to produce something better.
These editors that have supposedly embraced LSP are perhaps throwing a bone to people who want to turn them into IDEs. If people don't use the LSPs, they keep the integrity of the editor - it is an editor, not an IDE. Whereas people who set up an LSP can go nuts. I'd like to see some stats about what % of neovim users are using an LSP plugin. I'm not.
Could anyone with more knowledge please explain what this is and how one might utilize it? Fwiw, I’m deeply familiar with Bash; I just don’t recognize the rest.