When rendering missing or redundant patterns, linked-list would
wrongly suggest the last nil constructor as a pattern on non-empty
list.
For example, before this commit, the exhaustivness checker would yield:
```
[(_, True), []]
```
as a suggestion, for being the result of being a list pattern with a
single argument being `(_, True) :: Nil`. Blindly following the
compiler suggestion here would cause a type unification error (since
`[]` doesn't unify with a 2-tuple).
Indeed, we mustn't render the Nil constructor when rendering non-empty
lists! So the correct suggestion should be:
```
[(_, True)]
```
This was trickier than expected as the expression parser, and in particular the bin-op parser will interpret negative patterns as a continuation of a binary operation and eventually choke on the next right-arrow symbol. This is due to how we actually completely erase newlines once we're done with the lexer. The newline separating when clause is actually semantically important. In principle, we could only parse an expression until the next newline.
Ideally, we would keep that newline in the list of token but it's difficult to figure out which newline to keep between two right arrows since a clause guard can be written over multiple lines. Though, since we know that this is only truly a problem for negative integers, we can use the same trick as for tuples and define a new 'NewLineMinus' token. That token CANNOT be part of a binop expression. That means it's impossible to write a binary operation with a minus over multiple lines, or more specifically, with the '-' symbol on a newline. This sounds like a fair limitation. What we get in exchange is less ambiguity when parsing patterns following expressions in when clause cases.
Another more cumbersome option could be to preserve the first newline encountered after a 'right-arrow' symbol and before any parenthesis or curly brace is found (which would otherwise signal the beginning of a new block). That requires to traverse, at least partially, the list of tokens twice. This feels unnecessary for now and until we do face a similar issue with a binary operator.
microproofs