Odd Union table behaviour

[johannesrld]

Union types in LuaLS seem to work fine with primitive types, typing something like ---@alias numberOrString number | string correctly denotes that the type of a value can either be a number or a string.

Where union types get a bit strange is when you use them with tables, e.g. take a union like this one:

{prop1: "value1", prop2: number} | {prop1: "value2", prop2: string}

Other type checkers usually type check this in the obvious way: you can either pass a table with a "value1" prop1 and a number in prop2, or a "value2" prop1 with a string in prop2.

What this union type is actually type checked as is:

{prop1: "value1" | "value2", prop2: number | string}

This feels really odd to me, because this would also accept a table such as {prop1: "value1", prop2: "teststring"} despite never actually explicitly allowing a type such as {prop1: "value1", prop2: string} in the union

[johannesrld]

Note that I don't actually think this is a bug, but it would be nice to get the former behaviour instead of the latter somehow. The majority of the time the actual behaviour I want out of a union would be the discrete behaviour instead of the current behaviour where unions produce one congealed "super" table of all tables in the union.