bug: Discrepancy between parse and playground trees

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-cpp

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

0.23.4

Describe the bug

I found that the output of tree-sitter-cpp is inconsistent with that of playground cpp. Just like https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter/issues/3449 and https://github.com/tree-sitter/tree-sitter-c/issues/211.
I use pypi https://pypi.org/project/tree-sitter-cpp to parse the C++ code. It failed to identify the constructor function but the playground successfully identified the constructor function:

class BigTiffImage: public Image
        {
            public:
                BigTiffImage(BasicIo::AutoPtr io):
                    Image(ImageType::bigtiff, mdExif, io),
                    header_(),
                    dataSize_(0),
                    doSwap_(false)
                {
                    header_ = readHeader(Image::io());
                    assert(header_.isValid());

                    doSwap_ =  (isLittleEndianPlatform() && header_.byteOrder() == bigEndian)
                          ||   (isBigEndianPlatform()    && header_.byteOrder() == littleEndian);

                    dataSize_ = header_.format() == Header::StandardTiff? 4 : 8;
                }

                virtual ~BigTiffImage() {}
};

Does it mean the parser in playground is different from the parser used in pypi? Could you please tell me what parser versions are used in playground and pypi?

Steps To Reproduce/Bad Parse Tree

class BigTiffImage: public Image
        {
            public:
                BigTiffImage(BasicIo::AutoPtr io):
                    Image(ImageType::bigtiff, mdExif, io),
                    header_(),
                    dataSize_(0),
                    doSwap_(false)
                {
                    header_ = readHeader(Image::io());
                    assert(header_.isValid());

                    doSwap_ =  (isLittleEndianPlatform() && header_.byteOrder() == bigEndian)
                          ||   (isBigEndianPlatform()    && header_.byteOrder() == littleEndian);

                    dataSize_ = header_.format() == Header::StandardTiff? 4 : 8;
                }

                virtual ~BigTiffImage() {}
};

It failed to identify the constructor function and consider the entire class to be a function

Expected Behavior/Parse Tree

class BigTiffImage: public Image
        {
            public:
                BigTiffImage(BasicIo::AutoPtr io):
                    Image(ImageType::bigtiff, mdExif, io),
                    header_(),
                    dataSize_(0),
                    doSwap_(false)
                {
                    header_ = readHeader(Image::io());
                    assert(header_.isValid());

                    doSwap_ =  (isLittleEndianPlatform() && header_.byteOrder() == bigEndian)
                          ||   (isBigEndianPlatform()    && header_.byteOrder() == littleEndian);

                    dataSize_ = header_.format() == Header::StandardTiff? 4 : 8;
                }

                virtual ~BigTiffImage() {}
};

successfully identify the constructor function

Repro

class BigTiffImage: public Image
        {
            public:
                BigTiffImage(BasicIo::AutoPtr io):
                    Image(ImageType::bigtiff, mdExif, io),
                    header_(),
                    dataSize_(0),
                    doSwap_(false)
                {
                    header_ = readHeader(Image::io());
                    assert(header_.isValid());

                    doSwap_ =  (isLittleEndianPlatform() && header_.byteOrder() == bigEndian)
                          ||   (isBigEndianPlatform()    && header_.byteOrder() == littleEndian);

                    dataSize_ = header_.format() == Header::StandardTiff? 4 : 8;
                }

                virtual ~BigTiffImage() {}
};

Start by reproducing the provided C++ example with tree-sitter-cpp 0.23.4 from PyPI and in the tree-sitter playground, then compare the parser versions and resulting trees. Done means identifying why the constructor is classified differently and documenting or correcting the version discrepancy.