Reason: Put parens back to switch (foo) in the printer

[chenglou]

Apparently folks find it confusing that it sometimes need parens and sometimes doesn't.

We can keep the non-parenthesized version in the parser to be lenient, but print the parens.

Same for try catch

[canadaduane]

An example of when this is confusing. If I start with this:

let fn = (v1, v2) => switch v1 {
| true => "ok"
| _ => "other"
}

and then modify by adding && v2, like this:

let fn = (v1, v2) => switch v1 && v2 {
| true => "ok"
| _ => "other"
}

I get "UNKNOWN SYNTAX ERROR".

[chenglou]

btw for this case, you should use a tuple: https://reasonml.github.io/guide/language/tuple#tips--tricks

[canadaduane]

Yeah, either way, the example is just to show how an innocuous progression of code modifications can lead to a difficult to understand parse error.

[strega-nil]

I'd argue for less parentheses in general - it should be possible to not require parentheses in nearly any case, like Rust.

[canadaduane]

@ubsan that would be my preference as well... I recall some discussion about it earlier but can't find why this was harder to do

[yawaramin]

This can be closed thanks to #1720 / #1733, correct?

[chenglou]

Yep, thanks