Wrong suggestions for typos on variables that have the same name as struct fields

[TaKO8Ki]

Given the following code:

1.63.0-nightly (2022-05-22)

https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=bb6ee98b3c92917f9eab8607bf3f5deb

struct A {
    config: String,
}

impl A {
    fn do_something(self, cofig: String) {
        println!("{config}"); //~ Error cannot find value `config` in this scope
    }
}

fn main() {}

The current output is:

This suggestion can cause compiler errors.

Compiling playground v0.0.1 (/playground)
error[[E0425]](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/error-index.html#E0425): cannot find value `config` in this scope
 --> src/main.rs:7:20
  |
7 |         println!("{config}"); //~ Error cannot find value `config` in this scope
  |                    ^^^^^^ help: you might have meant to use the available field: `self.config`

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0425`.
error: could not compile `playground` due to previous error

Ideally the output should look like:

help shouldn't be emitted.

or should look like println!("{}", self.config).

Compiling playground v0.0.1 (/playground)
error[[E0425]](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/error-index.html#E0425): cannot find value `config` in this scope
 --> src/main.rs:7:20
  |
7 |         println!("{config}"); //~ Error cannot find value `config` in this scope
  |                    ^^^^^^

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0425`.
error: could not compile `playground` due to previous error

[ChayimFriedman2]

Really ideally we should suggest something like println!("{}", self.config), but I'm pretty sure this is infeasible. On the other hand, maybe one day we'll have field accesses in the formatting macros.

[estebank]

I think that if we had #96999 it'd be enough. I consider it "ok" if a suggestion gives you incorrect code that will in turn give you a suggestion for working code.