Same pattern we've seen many times before: a field on an anonymous node
gets attached to the parent node instead.
I'm not 100% sure this is the right solution, but it seemed wrong to
just make `_parenthesized_type` named instead (we don't usually name
parentheticals). At the very least, this cleans up the spurious
navigation_expression.element and tuple_type_item.element fields.
Because `_type` was anonymous, its body was inlined in all of the places
it appeared. Because this body contained a `name` field, this field was
_also_ inlined. This caused a bunch of nodes to have spurious `name`
fields, and for some of them (that already had such a field) it caused
that field have multiplicity greater than one.
To fix this, we make the `_type` node named, which prevents the errant
field from escaping.
Adds a new type `nested_type_identifier`, which contains the
choice-branch that previously allowed those tokens to bleed through into
the closest parent field.
You know the drill. We just make an anonymous node named instead. In
this case, however, we have to be a bit more clever about how to rewrite
it. We turn the sequence of a type followed by an optional ! into a
_choice_ between mere type or type followed by bang (the latter being
our new named node).
Supertypes are a honking great idea. We should use more of them.
This massively cleans up the node types, without polluting the AST with
`expression` nodes.
Before, the `condition` field of an if statement supposedly could
contain things like parentheses and commas, due to bleeding from
referenced anonymous nodes. Making the node named makes this issue go
away.
We make _referenceable_operator a named node. This prevents it from
bleeding through to the _expression definition. It likely also makes the
output easier to deal with, as bare operators used as arguments now have
a named node wrapping them in the AST.
Also removes a duplicated inclusion of _comparison_operator that served
no purpose.
This caused any field containing an _expression to appear as if it could
countain any number of such nodes. It also threw away the information
that there was a `?` marker there.
To fix it, we simply move the definition into its own named node.
The astute reader will note that we seem to _lose_ some node types in
the process. Apparently, these were unreachable in the grammar, and the
newer version of tree-sitter removes such "dead code".
