Suggested improvement for SC2006's "Did you mean" alternative message

[raforg]

Hi, the current Did-you-mean? alternative for SC2006 "Use $(...) notation instead of legacy backticks would be much improved if it removed the would-no-longer-be-necessary backslash quoting that is necessary when using backticks, but is not necessary when using $(...). See the example below.

For bugs

• Rule Id (if any, e.g. SC1000): SC2006
• My shellcheck version: online
• The rule's wiki page does not already cover this (e.g. https://shellcheck.net/wiki/SC2086)
• I tried on https://www.shellcheck.net/ and verified that this is still a problem on the latest commit

Here's a snippet or screenshot that shows the problem:

#!/bin/sh
target="`readlink \"$symlink\"`"

Here's what shellcheck currently says:

Line 1296:
            target="`readlink \"$symlink\"`"
                    ^-- SC2006 (style): Use $(...) notation instead of legacy backticks `...`.

Did you mean: (apply this, apply all SC2006)
            target="$(readlink \"$symlink\")"

Here's what I wanted or expected to see:

Line 1296:
            target="`readlink \"$symlink\"`"
                    ^-- SC2006 (style): Use $(...) notation instead of legacy backticks `...`.

Did you mean: (apply this, apply all SC2006)
            target="$(readlink "$symlink")"

Note: The difference is the absence of the backslash characters that precede doublequotes in the original. These backslashes would no longer be necessary if backticks were to be replaced with $(...). Making this clear would further encourage making the siggested change.