Introduce tree-sitter queries for syntactic scopes

[Will-Sommers]

• Partially addresses Change scopeType matchers to rely on tree-sitter style scheme queries #616
• Partially addresses structural editing when cursor is right outside the structure #436
• Depends on Add factories for stages and scope handlers #1396

Todo

• [DISCUSS] What to do about fallback iterationScope? That's the only thing that is a regression here.
• File issues for FIXMEs
• File issue for defining iteration scopes. Can probably reuse most of the code from the regular scope handler other than creating the target
• File issue to add unit tests for scope handlers
• File issue to add some Python scope types where multiple can end at the same point (due to lack of closing brackets)
• Add test that checks no scope types are duplicated between legacy and new definition, or file issue to add test
• File PR for my 7783da6 (Add support for domain, leading, trailing, interior) Add support for domain, leading, trailing, interior #1427
• Look through comments on this thread for anything worth filing / doing
• Open as new PR?
• Remove extraneous test cases
• Double check Introduce tree-sitter queries for syntactic scopes #629 (comment); a lot of those tests we already have for the generic modifier code
• Make sure changes to parse-tree-extension are shipped
• Close Allow pipeline stages to run without a context #785 if we fix that
• Comment on Update scope type modifier to expand on both ends #484 saying the process has started and providing link to example
• Close Implement generic "every" logic #797 if we fix that

[pokey]

Shouldn't we use https://github.com/nvim-treesitter/tree-sitter-query instead of scheme?

[pokey]

Also worth mentioning https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=jrieken.vscode-tree-sitter-query, which defines a language id for tree sitter queries

[Will-Sommers]

sg!

[pokey]

Just publishing a few random comments here

[pokey]

nice progress 😊. Definitely pretty clean / readable syntax. Left a few nits

[pokey]

Haven't read whole PR yet but here's some comments

[pokey]

As discussed in meet-up, algorithm is as follows:

1. Split range into start and end position
2. For the start position
   1. Find smallest domain that contains or is adjacent to position
   2. If there are two such nodes, pick the one to the right
3. If the end position is contained or adjacent to the domain returned in previous step, return the tagged range
4. Otherwise, run steps 2.1 and 2.2 on the end node
5. If the start position is contained or adjacent to domain returned in previous step, return the tagged range
6. Otherwise, return the range from the start tagged range to the end tagged range, with direction taken from selection

[pokey]

Ok this one is good to go, but unfortunately it breaks "every funk" for Ruby. I created #1430 to fix that issue. That PR is ready, so would be great if you could have a look when you get a minute. I think they should prob merge in together so we don't break "every funk" in Ruby on main