SA1642 (constructor summary text) special case for structures

[sharwell]

Currently SA1642 always enforces the use of the word "class" in the documentation for constructors. Should the constructors for a struct type "prefer" the use of another word here, in the same sense as #413 handled the wording for private constructors?

[AArnott]

Yes. "struct' should be the last word of the mandatory leading text for structure constructors.

[sharwell]

@AArnott I guess the other question is should it be 'struct' or 'structure'?

[AArnott]

struct.
My answers are based on the behavior of the original StyleCop. I have several very large codebases that are migrating from stylecop to stylecop.analyzers, and I'd love for it to go smoothly.
Also, I've noticed that a lot of the text StyleCop rules require to appear in xml doc comments to match MSDN docs, which I think has value to preserve as well.

[sharwell]

I have several very large codebases that are migrating from stylecop to stylecop.analyzers

BTW, just saw this part. That's pretty cool! 👯