can we go ahead and merge this?

@JonasAlaif It would be great if you could have a look at this. It's a tiny change obviously but maybe there are some principles to when and how you used cuts that I'm breaking.

Sorry for not looking at this earlier. What is this meant to address? The cuts help improve performance and parse error messages so we should try to keep them in if possible.

The code in #833 doesn't parse with the cuts bc it thinks there might be an annotated expression after decreases, but it's an annotated function, but it cannot backtrack bc of the cut in annotation parsing.

I see. Why in the jeebus do we allow such ambiguous syntax... If this is really what we want, I would just special case the expr annotation immediately after a decreases to not have a cut (i.e. decreases ~ specialExp) and avoid removing the good cuts elsewhere.

This isn't what we want, this is unfortunately what we already have. I'll try doing that.