bug: Management of type (binary_operator VS union_type)

[jecisc]

Did you check existing issues?

• I have read all the tree-sitter docs if it relates to using the parser
• I have searched the existing issues of tree-sitter-python

Tree-Sitter CLI Version, if relevant (output of tree-sitter --version)

No response

Describe the bug

I am using the latest version of tree-sitter-python.

I tried to parse this: def f() -> int | str: pass

For the return type I get a type node with a binary operator.

But if we change int by a generic_type, then the type contains an union_type instead of a binary_operator

IMO this is not right. We should be consistent and always have union_type (or remove it and only have binary_operator).

What do you think?

Steps To Reproduce/Bad Parse Tree

Parse those two pieces of code:

'def f() -> str | int: pass'

'def f() -> IO[bytes] | int: pass'

Expected Behavior/Parse Tree

To have an union_type for both and no binary_operator.

Repro