feat: Add option to output colors

[max-sixty]

This moves #1355 forward, and enables a PR to add colors to the book. The main thing to review is whether the proposed structure and naming of the options is reasonable.

On the names — it's not that consistent — we have signature_comment — should this just be colors rather than use_colors? Or does signature_comment suggest it contains an actual comment? I've generally tried to make bools self-describing, but possible an options struct can be more implicit.

Edit: this is now just a color property and .with_color(self, color) method, consistent with something like https://github.com/zesterer/ariadne/blob/ccd465160129d2546d67f7ee78727a4098a64330/src/lib.rs#L81. Possibly we should standardize around something like that

---

It's slightly different from the proposal in #1355 — it doesn't introduce another layer of options.

• I think possibly the code has changed slightly since then, since there was a discussion on whether to pass an Options struct to the compile function, which we now already do.
• And I would vote to lean towards having a flatter, simpler, structure until we have lots of confidence in the eventual structure.
  • (Separate point, ref Feedback wanted: contributing to the complier #1840 — possibly that would have also made the initial contribution easier, which was well-described in Add color option to CLI #1355 but was a decent amount of work? Possibly we should be trying to make the initial contributions as tiny as possible, even at the cost of them requiring later refactorings?)

---

I'm not completely clear how we support colors in prqlc now...

• We're currently passing false to the composed method, which is passed through to ariadne here
• But we are getting colors!
  
• Possibly some combination of Ariadne's features and our color_eyre::install usage auto configures it?
  • Though then how would we implement Add color option to CLI #1355 if passing false doesn't pass through to ariadne?

---

This doesn't implement support in bindings yet.

[max-sixty]

@aljazerzen given you're quasi-out for two weeks, give this a thumbs-down if you want me to wait — e.g. the options aren't named well — otherwise I'll merge. (better to wait than revert)

[eitsupi]

Could it be listed in the Changelog? (Downstream packages also need to add the new field to Options)

[max-sixty]

Could it be listed in the Changelog? (Downstream packages also need to add the new field to Options)

Definitely, will do

More generally, if there's some check we could add — e.g. anything with a fix or feat requires an edit to the Changelog file, then I'd support that. (But I'm less keen on a separate tool like changie, I find that adds overhead to tiny PRs)

[max-sixty]

I'm not completely clear how we support colors in prqlc now...

FYI this was resolved in #2267