Fix return type on repAs1

[johnynek]

This was an oversight: the repAs1 extension method hid that it returns a Parser1

The work around is to directly call the repAs1 method on the Parser companion which does return the correct type.

[regadas]

👍 indeed this makes sense! but now we have MiMa complaining. Is it worth going to 0.2.0?

[johnynek]

@mpilquist since mima stuff seems to be pretty automatic, how is this kind of PR generally merged in such cases? Do we add the exclusions, then publish 0.2, then remove the exclusions?

[rossabaker]

If you bump the baseVersion to 0.2, I don't think it will check against 0.1 anymore.

[johnynek]

actually, all the classes in Parser are sealed or final, so I think exclusions would be fine, but 0.1.0 is a low version anyway, so why not go to 0.2.0 when we publish next (I think after adding #101 ).

[codecov-io]

Codecov Report

Merging #99 (41610ff) into main (3637d52) will not change coverage.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@           Coverage Diff           @@
##             main      #99   +/-   ##
=======================================
  Coverage   96.44%   96.44%           
=======================================
  Files           5        5           
  Lines         676      676           
  Branches       57       57           
=======================================
  Hits          652      652           
  Misses         24       24           

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
core/shared/src/main/scala/cats/parse/Parser.scala	97.28% <ø> (ø)

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 923a513...41610ff. Read the comment docs.