Previously, this code treated enum fields' visibility as if they were
struct fields. However, that's not correct because the visibility of a
struct field with `ast::VisibilityKind::Inherited` is private to the
module it's defined in, whereas the visibility of an *enum* field with
`ast::VisibilityKind::Inherited` is the visibility of the enum it
belongs to.
Fixes#75982
The direct parent of a module may not be a module
(e.g. `const _: () = { #[path = "foo.rs"] mod foo; };`).
To find the parent of a module for purposes of resolution, we need to
walk up the tree until we hit a module or a crate root.
Give better diagnostic when using a private tuple struct constructor
Fixes#75907
Some notes:
1. This required some deep changes, including removing a Copy impl for PatKind. If some tests fail, I would still appreciate review on the overall approach
2. this only works with basic patterns (no wildcards for example), and fails if there is any problems getting the visibility of the fields (i am not sure what the failure that can happen in resolve_visibility_speculative, but we check the length of our fields in both cases against each other, so if anything goes wrong, we fall back to the worse error. This could be extended to more patterns
3. this does not yet deal with #75906, but I believe it will be similar
4. let me know if you want more tests
5. doesn't yet at the suggestion that `@yoshuawuyts` suggested at the end of their issue, but that could be added relatively easily (i believe)
