Option to transform short circuit to if condition

[domluna]

implements what's discussed in #759

cc @chriselrod if you could try this out that would be great

[hyrodium]

Could you please update docs/src/index.md to list the new option?

[hyrodium]

This PR adds a new option short_circuit_to_if, so it would be better to bump the minor version.

Suggested change

	version = "1.0.40"
	version = "1.1.0"

[domluna]

by default it's off so from the user perspective there's no change implying there's not really a need to bump it. Also there's this compatibility thing with VSCode where bumping the minor version frequently leads to things being out of sync so it's easier to just bump the patch version.

[hyrodium]

by default it's off so from the user perspective there's no change implying there's not really a need to bump it.

Hmm, Julia packages should respect semantic versioning, so I believe bumping the patch version should imply a bug fix. (cf. Pkg.jl docs, semver docs)

Also there's this compatibility thing with VSCode where bumping the minor version frequently leads to things being out of sync so it's easier to just bump the patch version.

What is the reason behind this? I couldn't find the [compat] table in Project.toml files in the julia-vscode repository.

[hyrodium]

Also there's this compatibility thing with VSCode where bumping the minor version frequently leads to things being out of sync so it's easier to just bump the patch version.

Is it because of this (julia-vscode/julia-vscode#3226 (comment))? If so, the problem about the JuliaFormatter's version in vscode is not related to bumping patch or minor version.

[chriselrod]

Just tried it, and works great!

454                 (1 <= a <= j) || error("oops")    488                 if !((1 <= a <= j))
...                                                   489                     error("oops")
...                                                   490                 end
455

Only possible suggestion (other than documenting it), is in case of ||, maybe check if the condition is already wrapped in parenthesis so we avoid double-wrapping?
Not that big of a deal, though.
Happy to see this.