Rework TastyInspector API to allow inspection of all files

[nicolasstucki]

An alternative to #10777

Change the API to allow inspection of all trees at the same time.

- class MyInspector extends scala.tasty.inspector.TastyInspector:
-    def processCompilationUnit(using Quotes)(root: quotes.reflect.Tree): Unit = 
-      println(tree.show(using quotes.reflect.Printer.TreeStructure))
- 
- new MyInspector().inspectTastyFiles(tastyFiles)

+ class MyInspector extends scala.tasty.inspector.Inspector:
+   def inspect(using Quotes)(tastys: Tasty[quotes.type]): Unit =
+     for tasty <- tastys do 
+       println(tasty.ast.show(using quotes.reflect.Printer.TreeStructure))
+    
+ TastyInspector.inspectTastyFiles(tastyFiles)(new MyInspector)

Porting scala3doc is left for a future PR.

[nicolasstucki]

This is the API that everyone has been asking for. Now we can inspect all TASTy files sources at once.

@abgruszecki could you have a look at the scala3doc side?

[abgruszecki]

Overall LGTM, I have only one small comment.

[nicolasstucki]

@abgruszecki I added a Tasty interface to avoid all the (_,..) in for (_, tree) <- tastys do ... . It will also be useful if in the future if we what to extend this interface, maybe add a jpath method or something else we have not thought off yet.

[abgruszecki]

It looks good. Having the Quotes instance inside Tasty shouldn't hurt.

[abgruszecki]

I think we could use a test that implements Inspector#inspect, uses the outer Quotes to retrieve a symbol, and compares it with the symbol of the nested ast - mostly as a sanity check that the types work out. Otherwise, LGTM.

[nicolasstucki]

Could you give me an outline of the test you have in mind?

[nicolasstucki]

@abgruszecki after our discussion about the current tests is it ok to merge this PR?

[abgruszecki]

@nicolasstucki yep, no issue on that end.

[liufengyun]

LGTM

[liufengyun]

Minor: what about just call it Tasty? The rationale is to avoid the conceptual link with Inspector.

[nicolasstucki]

We already have trait called Tasty that means something different. Maybe we need another name.

[liufengyun]

Then it's fine to keep the current name.