Should ignored-unit-patterns include parameter destructuring

[cloneable]

Summary

error: matching over () is more explicit
--> src/lib.rs:8:12
|
8 | pub fn moo(_: ()) {}
| ^ help: use () instead of _: ()
|
= help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#ignored_unit_patterns
= note: -D clippy::ignored-unit-patterns implied by -D clippy::pedantic

Lint Name

ignored_unit_patterns

Reproducer

I tried this code:

pub fn moo(_: ()) {}

I saw this happen:

error: matching over `()` is more explicit
 --> src/lib.rs:1:12
  |
8 | pub fn moo(_: ()) {}
  |            ^ help: use `()` instead of `_`: `()`
  |
  = help: for further information visit https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#ignored_unit_patterns
  = note: `-D clippy::ignored-unit-patterns` implied by `-D clippy::pedantic`

I expected to see this happen:

It's unclear from #11242 and the test cases if this check was intended to include parameter destructuring.

Version

rustc 1.73.0-beta.1 (680cdf816 2023-08-21)
binary: rustc
commit-hash: 680cdf8168a906b4ea80af673c64e4a16f77be57
commit-date: 2023-08-21
host: aarch64-apple-darwin
release: 1.73.0-beta.1
LLVM version: 17.0.0

Additional Labels

No response

[Alexendoo]

Yeah I think this would be good to ignore

[Centri3]

This also extends to let statements, where type annotations are present: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=edc8b6319b4a6ad1374ee18c17125b2a

[cloneable]

Would it be best to move this check to clippy::nursery (before next beta) until things are sorted? I do believe it should be part of clippy::pedantic in the future, at least personally I'd like to see it there, but it seems this check needs more work.

[samueltardieu]

@rustbot claim

[cloneable]

Sorry, I noticed that beta.5 went out without this fix. Was this the last beta before the release? Does this mean this lint gets included in pedantic in the unfixed state in 1.73?