Weirdly enough, we got the parsing wrong for byte literals in expressions (but did okay in constants). But got the formatting wrong in constants (yet did okay for formatting expressions). I've factored out the code in both cases to avoid the duplication that led to this in the first place. Plus added test coverage to make sure this doesn't happen in the future.
With pretty parse errors on failures. The type-checker was already
implemented for those, so it now only requires some work in the code
generation.
Fixes#297.
Somehow missed it when reworking tuples. We need to allow the new
'NewLineLeftParen' token in this situation as well. Especially because
this is what the formatter outputs.
This possibly breaks many Aiken programs out there, but it's for the
best. We haven't released the alpha yet so we still have a bit of
freedom when it comes to breaking change.
Plus, the migration path is easy, simply run:
```
find . -name "*.ak" | xargs sed -i "s/#(/(/g"
```
(or `-i ''` on MacOS).
This changes allow to use parenthesis `(` `)` to encapsulate
expressions in addition to braces `{` `}` used to define blocks.
The main use-case is for arithmetic and boolean expressions for which
developers are used to using parenthesis. For example:
```
{ 14 + 42 } * 1337
```
can now be written as:
```
( 14 + 42 ) * 1337
```
This may sound straightforward at first but wasn't necessarily trivial
in Aiken given that (a) everything is an expression, (b) whitespaces
do not generally matter and (c) there's no symbol indicating the end
of a 'statement' (because there's no statement).
Thus, we have to properly disambiguate between:
```
let foo = bar(14 + 42)
```
and
```
let foo = bar
(14 + 42)
```
Before this commit, the latter would be interpreted as a function call
and would lead to a somewhat puzzling error. Now, the newline serves
as a delimiting symbol. The trade-off being that for a function call,
the left parenthesis has to be on the same line as the function name
identifier -- which is a fair trade off. So this is still allowed:
```
let foo = bar(
14 + 42
)
```
As there's very little ambiguity about it.
This fixes#236 and would seemingly allow us to get rid of the leading
`#` in front of tuples.
