Fix check files

Author: odersky

tests/neg/i20554-a.check

@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@
   | Explanation (enabled by `-explain`)
   |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   | Starting from Scala 3.6.0, named arguments are required for Java defined annotations.
-  | Java defined annotations don't have an exact constructor representation 
-  | and we previously relied on the order of the fields to create one. 
+  | Java defined annotations don't have an exact constructor representation
+  | and we previously relied on the order of the fields to create one.
   | One possible issue with this representation is the reordering of the fields.
   | Lets take the following example:
   |
@@ -29,8 +29,8 @@
   | Explanation (enabled by `-explain`)
   |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   | Starting from Scala 3.6.0, named arguments are required for Java defined annotations.
-  | Java defined annotations don't have an exact constructor representation 
-  | and we previously relied on the order of the fields to create one. 
+  | Java defined annotations don't have an exact constructor representation
+  | and we previously relied on the order of the fields to create one.
   | One possible issue with this representation is the reordering of the fields.
   | Lets take the following example:
   |

tests/neg/i20554-b.check

@@ -7,8 +7,8 @@
   | Explanation (enabled by `-explain`)
   |- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
   | Starting from Scala 3.6.0, named arguments are required for Java defined annotations.
-  | Java defined annotations don't have an exact constructor representation 
-  | and we previously relied on the order of the fields to create one. 
+  | Java defined annotations don't have an exact constructor representation
+  | and we previously relied on the order of the fields to create one.
   | One possible issue with this representation is the reordering of the fields.
   | Lets take the following example:
   |

tests/neg/i21543.check

@@ -0,0 +1,22 @@
+-- [E007] Type Mismatch Error: tests/neg/i21543.scala:10:15 ------------------------------------------------------------
+10 |      Cmd(List("1", "2")) // error // error
+   |               ^^^
+   |               Found:    ("1" : String)
+   |               Required: Event
+   |
+   |               Note that I could not resolve reference Event.
+   |               Event is a private member in a base class
+   |                                
+   |
+   | longer explanation available when compiling with `-explain`
+-- [E007] Type Mismatch Error: tests/neg/i21543.scala:10:20 ------------------------------------------------------------
+10 |      Cmd(List("1", "2")) // error // error
+   |                    ^^^
+   |                    Found:    ("2" : String)
+   |                    Required: Event
+   |
+   |                    Note that I could not resolve reference Event.
+   |                    Event is a private member in a base class
+   |                                     
+   |
+   | longer explanation available when compiling with `-explain`

tests/neg/i21543.scala

@@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ object CompilerCrash {
 
   new Scope {
     val commands = List(
-      Cmd(List("1", "2"))
+      Cmd(List("1", "2")) // error // error
     )
   }
 }