Originally suggested by @T-Gro
When pattern matching a DU member on a big n-tuple (e.g. 5 items) and n decreases because of a change - you get a type mismatch because a 5-tuple does not work with a 6-tuple.
The codefix could:
- Add one more " , _ ,"
- BETTER: suggest to convert the DU member matching from positional arguments to named ones.
- Precondition: The items of the DU member have real names, and not just Item1..ItemN
- All the discarded _ ones can be ignored
- Only the really used ones remain
This would react on: FS0727 - This union case expects %i arguments
Originally suggested by @T-Gro
When pattern matching a DU member on a big n-tuple (e.g. 5 items) and n decreases because of a change - you get a type mismatch because a 5-tuple does not work with a 6-tuple.
The codefix could:
This would react on: FS0727 - This union case expects %i arguments