t4034: bulk verify builtin word regex sanity

The builtin word regexes should be tested with some simple examples
against simple issues.  Do this in bulk.

Mainly due to a lack of language knowledge and inspiration, most of
the test cases (cpp, csharp, java, objc, pascal, php, python, ruby)
are directly based off a C operator precedence table to verify that
all operators are split correctly.  This means that they are probably
incomplete or inaccurate except for 'cpp' itself.

Still, they are good enough to already have uncovered a typo in the
python and ruby patterns.

'fortran' is based on my anecdotal knowledge of the DO10I parsing
rules, and thus probably useless.  The rest (bibtex, html, tex) are an
ad-hoc test of what I consider important splits in those languages.

Signed-off-by: Thomas Rast <trast@student.ethz.ch>
Signed-off-by: Jonathan Nieder <jrnieder@gmail.com>
Signed-off-by: Junio C Hamano <gitster@pobox.com>

t/t4034/bibtex/post

@@ -0,0 +1,10 @@
+@article{aldous1987uie,
+  title={{Ultimate instability of exponential back-off protocol for acknowledgment-based transmission control of random access communication channels}},
+  author={Aldous, David},
+  journal={Information Theory, IEEE Transactions on},
+  volume={Bogus.},
+  number={4},
+  pages={219--223},
+  year=1987,
+  note={This is in fact a rather funny read since ethernet works well in practice. The {\em pre} reference is the right one, however.}
+}