Suggest specifying generic as union if candidates are different

issue 内の compare と match の例を再現として使用し、まず現在の TypeScript バージョンでそれらの diagnostics を確認してください。意図した解決策が明示的な union 型による修正である場合に、diagnostic が異なる推論候補を説明し、その修正を明確に示せば完了です。

TypeScript Version: 2.6.1.

Code

If a generic type can't be formed by picking one of the inference candidates, you'll get the error you posted.

– https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39905523/why-isnt-the-type-argument-inferred-as-a-union-type/39905723#39905723

This makes sense, however I would like to question whether we can improve the user experience around this, so errors due to this constraint are easier to understand and fix.

For example:

{
    function compare<T>(x: T, y: T): number {
        return 1;
    }
    compare(
        'oops',
        /* Argument of type '42' is not assignable to parameter of type 'string'. */
        42,
    );
}

{
    function match<T>(cases: { foo: T; bar: T }): T {
        return cases.foo;
    }
    /*
    Argument of type '{ foo: number; bar: string; }' is not assignable to parameter of type '{ foo: number; bar: number; }'.
        Types of property 'bar' are incompatible.
            Type 'string' is not assignable to type 'number'.
    */
    match({
        foo: 1,
        bar: 'foo',
    });
}

As a TypeScript user, I have struggled with these errors many times, and I've only recently realised the specific constraint on the type system which is the root cause of these errors: generics are picked from the first candidate and are not widened to include all candidates. I have also seen other people struggle with this when learning TypeScript.

We can fix this error by specifying the generic as a union:

    match<string | number>({
        foo: 1,
        bar: 'foo',
    });

However, this fix is really not obvious from the error message, especially if the user is not aware of this constraint on the type system (that generics will not be inferred as unions).

I'm wondering if there's any way we can better surface this constraint to the user, to make it clearer to users how they can fix these type errors, such as by specifying the generic as a union (if that is what they intend).