Make it possible to deconstruct multi-field Discriminated Unions by naming multiple fields

Right above https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/fsharp/language-reference/discriminated-unions#unwrapping-discriminated-unions, it is documented that we can match a discriminated unions by a single field name.

type Shape =
| Rectangle of width : float * length : float
| Circle of radius : float
| Prism of width : float * float * height : float

let getShapeWidth shape =
    match shape with
    | Rectangle(width = w) -> w
    | Circle(radius = r) -> 2. * r
    | Prism(width = w) -> w

However, as soon as we try to match more than one field,

let getContainedSpace shape =
    match shape with
    | Rectangle(w, l) -> w * l
    | Circle(r) -> System.Math.PI * r ** 2.
    | Prism(w, l, height = h) -> w * l * h // The "height = " causes these errors
// error FS0010: Unexpected symbol '=' in pattern. Expected ')' or other token.
// error FS0583: Unmatched '('
// error FS0010: Unexpected symbol '=' in pattern. Expected ')' or other token.
// error FS0583: Unmatched '('
// error FS0039: The value or constructor 'h' is not defined.

This feature is so incomplete!

Pros and Cons

The advantages of making this adjustment to F# are

1. Extending an existing feature to satisfy more use cases
2. More consistency between constructing and deconstructing a discriminated union. This is already allowed for the construction side.

The disadvantages of making this adjustment to F# are (none)

Extra information

Estimated cost (XS, S, M, L, XL, XXL): S

Related suggestions: (put links to related suggestions here)

Affidavit (please submit!)

Please tick this by placing a cross in the box:

• This is not a question (e.g. like one you might ask on stackoverflow) and I have searched stackoverflow for discussions of this issue
• I have searched both open and closed suggestions on this site and believe this is not a duplicate
• This is not something which has obviously "already been decided" in previous versions of F#. If you're questioning a fundamental design decision that has obviously already been taken (e.g. "Make F# untyped") then please don't submit it.

Please tick all that apply:

• This is not a breaking change to the F# language design
• I or my company would be willing to help implement and/or test this

For Readers

If you would like to see this issue implemented, please click the 👍 emoji on this issue. These counts are used to generally order the suggestions by engagement.