Adapt some pages to ReScript 11 including records and variants (#730)

* Adapt some pages to ReScript 11 including records and variants

* Some better wordings

* Variants: Add some TODOs

Author: fhammerschmidt

pages/docs/manual/latest/function.mdx

@@ -388,34 +388,7 @@ function callFirst(_param) {
 
 </CodeTab>
 
-## Uncurried Function
-
-ReScript's functions are curried by default, which is one of the few performance penalties we pay in the compiled JS output. The compiler does a best-effort job at removing those currying whenever possible. However, in certain edge cases, you might want guaranteed uncurrying. In those cases, put a dot in the function's parameter list:
-
-<CodeTab labels={["ReScript", "JS Output"]}>
-
-```res example
-let add = (. x, y) => x + y
-
-add(. 1, 2)
-```
-```js
-function add(x, y) {
-  return x + y | 0;
-}
-
-add(1, 2);
-```
-
-</CodeTab>
-
-If you write down the uncurried function's type, you'll add a dot there as well.
-
-**Note**: both the declaration site and the call site need to have the uncurry annotation. That's part of the guarantee/requirement.
-
-**This feature seems trivial**, but is actually one of our most important features, as a primarily functional language. We encourage you to use it if you'd like to remove any mention of `Curry` runtime in the JS output.
-
-## Async/Await (from v10.1)
+## Async/Await
 
 Just as in JS, an async function can be declared by adding `async` before the definition, and `await` can be used in the body of such functions.
 The output looks like idiomatic JS:

pages/docs/manual/latest/installation.mdx

@@ -21,6 +21,15 @@ npm run res:build
 node src/Demo.bs.js
 ```
 
+or use the create-rescript-app tool:
+
+```sh
+npm create rescript-app // Select basic template
+cd <your-rescript-project-name>
+npm run res:build
+node src/Demo.bs.js
+```
+
 That compiles your ReScript into JavaScript, then uses Node.js to run said JavaScript. **We recommend you use our unique workflow of keeping a tab open for the generated `.bs.js` file**, so that you can learn how ReScript transforms into JavaScript. Not many languages output clean JavaScript code you can inspect and learn from!
 
 During development, instead of running `npm run res:build` each time to compile, use `npm run res:dev` to start a watcher that recompiles automatically after file changes.

pages/docs/manual/latest/let-binding.mdx

@@ -131,9 +131,9 @@ As a matter of fact, even this is valid code:
 
 ```res example
 let result = "hello"
-Js.log(result) // prints "hello"
+Console.log(result) // prints "hello"
 let result = 1
-Js.log(result) // prints 1
+Console.log(result) // prints 1
 ```
 ```js
 var result = 1;

pages/docs/manual/latest/primitive-types.mdx

@@ -48,7 +48,6 @@ There's a special syntax for string that allows
 - multiline string just like before
 - no special character escaping
 - Interpolation
-- Proper unicode handling
 
 <CodeTab labels={["ReScript", "JS Output"]}>
 
@@ -71,27 +70,9 @@ var greeting = "Hello\nWorld\n👋\n" + name + "\n";
 
 This is just like JavaScript's backtick string interpolation, except without needing to escape special characters.
 
-### Unsafe String Interpolation (Deprecated)
-
-> ReScript v10.1.4 deprecated unsafe string interpolation and will be removed in v11.
-
-For interpolation, you'll have to convert the binding (`name` in the example) into a string if it isn't one. If you want the interpolation to implicitly convert a binding into a string, prepend a `j`:
-
-<CodeTab labels={["ReScript", "JS Output"]}>
-
-```res example
-let age = 10
-let message = j`Today I am $age years old.`
-```
-```js
-var message = "Today I am " + 10 + " years old.";
-```
-
-</CodeTab>
-
 ### Usage
 
-See the familiar `Js.String` API in the [API docs](api/js/string). Since a ReScript string maps to a JavaScript string, you can mix & match the string operations in both standard libraries.
+See the familiar `String` API in the [API docs](api/js/string). Since a ReScript string maps to a JavaScript string, you can mix & match the string operations in all standard libraries.
 
 ### Tips & Tricks
 

pages/docs/manual/latest/record.mdx

@@ -394,6 +394,122 @@ var me = {
 
 </CodeTab>
 
+## Record Type Spread
+
+In ReScript v11, you can now spread one or more record types into a new record type. It looks like this:
+
+```rescript
+type a = {
+  id: string,
+  name: string,
+}
+
+type b = {
+  age: int
+}
+
+type c = {
+  ...a,
+  ...b,
+  active: bool
+}
+```
+
+`type c` will now be:
+
+```rescript
+type c = {
+  id: string,
+  name: string,
+  age: int,
+  active: bool,
+}
+```
+
+Record type spreads act as a 'copy-paste' mechanism for fields from one or more records into a new record. This operation inlines the fields from the spread records directly into the new record definition, while preserving their original properties, such as whether they are optional or mandatory. It's important to note that duplicate field names are not allowed across the records being spread, even if the fields have the same type.
+
+## Record Type Coercion
+
+Record type coercion gives us more flexibility when passing around records in our application code. In other words, we can now coerce a record `a` to be treated as a record `b` at the type level, as long as the original record `a` contains the same set of fields in `b`. Here's an example:
+
+```rescript
+type a = {
+  name: string,
+  age: int,
+}
+
+type b = {
+  name: string,
+  age: int,
+}
+
+let nameFromB = (b: b) => b.name
+
+let a: a = {
+  name: "Name",
+  age: 35,
+}
+
+let name = nameFromB(a :> b)
+```
+
+Notice how we _coerced_ the value `a` to type `b` using the coercion operator `:>`. This works because they have the same record fields. This is purely at the type level, and does not involve any runtime operations.
+
+Additionally, we can also coerce records from `a` to `b` whenever `a` is a super-set of `b` (i.e. `a` containing all the fields of `b`, and more). The same example as above, slightly altered:
+
+```rescript
+type a = {
+  id: string,
+  name: string,
+  age: int,
+  active: bool,
+}
+
+type b = {
+  name: string,
+  age: int,
+}
+
+let nameFromB = (b: b) => b.name
+
+let a: a = {
+  id: "1",
+  name: "Name",
+  age: 35,
+  active: true,
+}
+
+let name = nameFromB(a :> b)
+```
+
+Notice how `a` now has more fields than `b`, but we can still coerce `a` to `b` because `b` has a subset of the fields of `a`.
+
+In combination with [optional record fields](/docs/manual/latest/record#optional-record-fields), one may coerce a mandatory field of an `option` type to an optional field:
+
+```rescript
+type a = {
+  name: string,
+
+  // mandatory, but explicitly typed as option<int>
+  age: option<int>,
+}
+
+type b = {
+  name: string,
+  // optional field
+  age?: int,
+}
+
+let nameFromB = (b: b) => b.name
+
+let a: a = {
+  name: "Name",
+  age: Some(35),
+}
+
+let name = nameFromB(a :> b)
+```
+
 ## Tips & Tricks
 
 ### Record Types Are Found By Field Name
@@ -438,3 +554,4 @@ After reading the constraints in the previous sections, and if you're coming fro
 
 1. The truth is that most of the times in your app, your data's shape is actually fixed, and if it's not, it can potentially be better represented as a combination of variant (introduced next) + record instead.
 2. Since a record type is resolved through finding that single explicit type declaration (we call this "nominal typing"), the type error messages end up better than the counterpart ("structural typing", like for tuples). This makes refactoring easier; changing a record type's fields naturally allows the compiler to know that it's still the same record, just misused in some places. Otherwise, under structural typing, it might get hard to tell whether the definition site or the usage site is wrong.
+