feat: allow to put type arguments in calling expressions

[kawaemon]

I realized that I forgot to allow type arguments in calling expressions on #57. I'm so sorry.
This PR fixes it, but there is a little concern. Can I ask for your opinions?

Due to syntax conflict, this thing occurs:

someFunction[foo]()
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ treated as indexing expression
someFunction[foo, bar]()
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ treated as generic function

It is painful on editor highlighting: (notice that both of Collect and Map are function, but have different highlighting)

Are there anything we can do? I know this is tough task but I wonder what other parsers do for this kind of problems.

Checklist:

• All tests pass in CI.
• There are sufficient tests for the new fix/feature.
• Grammar rules have not been renamed unless absolutely necessary.
• The conflicts section hasn't grown too much.
• The parser size hasn't grown too much (check the value of STATE_COUNT in src/parser.c).
  1220 → 1232

[maxbrunsfeld]

We should use dynamic precedence to always treat those constructs as type argument lists, as opposed to index expressions. I think a ‘prec.dynamic’ with a positive number in the type arguments rule will do the trick.

[kawaemon]

Really prec.dynamic did fix the issue and it keeps misunderstood codes minimal. Thanks for your kind advice!
This pull request is now ready to review.

[aryx]

maybe a comment would be useful here to explain the need for prec.dynamic, that is to prefer call_expression to index_expression, and why this works with the value 2.

[kawaemon]

I think it is because _type_identifier rule in _simple_type rule has its dynamic precedence -1. For example, if type_arguments rule had 1 dynamic precedence typical syntax tree like (type_arguments (_simple_type (type_identifier))) will have 0 dynamic precedence so it makes no difference between index_expression.
Can I open a pull request to write that comment?

[aryx]

I think those comments are useful for the next person that sees those prec.dynamic(2)
and wonder what it is.
Conflicts are hard to understand, so the more we have comments like this the better I think.