claude@clouddev1
fd259048da
ADR-0032 §10.3 says cte_bindings lives on the scope frame, with inner subqueries free to declare their own CTEs that shadow outer ones. The grammar didn't actually admit nested WITH inside SQL_SELECT_COMPOUND — a real ADR-vs-implementation gap. Closes the gap by making SQL_SELECT_COMPOUND a Choice between a WITH-prefixed form and a plain form. The naive Optional-prefix approach silently broke the paren-vs-subquery dispatch in sql_expr.rs's PAREN_GROUP: Optional matches 0 bytes, committing the Seq, so SELECT_CORE's NoMatch on `(a + b)` became Failed and the Choice couldn't fall through to or_expr. The Choice-fronted form keeps the fast NoMatch on non-WITH non-SELECT first tokens. Side effect: scalar subquery / IN / EXISTS / derived-table bodies now admit a leading WITH too, which matches standard SQL. Updated two tests that were guarding the old `(WITH …)` rejection behavior. Added one new harvest test exercising nested-WITH inside a CTE body — the harvest's `expand_binding` mechanism already handled the data correctly; the grammar gap was the sole blocker. Test totals: 1414 → 1415 passing (+1 nested-with-in-cte test). Clippy clean.