David Chambers

Thanks for the contributions, @miangraham. Keep them coming. :) You may have an opinion on #438. If we decide to abandon Ramda-style currying our TypeScript type definitions will no longer...

> In the meantime it'd be nice to get users just statically typing the basics to see how it goes! I agree. Let's focus on the curried signatures initially. :)

Rather than define `$.NullaryTypeRefinement` I suggest we add a parameter of type `Array Type` to `$.NullaryType`: ```diff // Integer :: Type const Integer = $.NullaryType( 'my-package/Integer', 'http://example.com/my-package#Integer', - x =>...

> Does it make sense to add this parameter *only* to `NullaryType`? What about types with other arities? I was imagining making the same change to `$.UnaryType` and `$.BinaryType` as...

The [blackbird][1] makes an appearance! ```javascript const compose2 = S.compose (S.compose) (S.compose); const insert = compose2 (S.concat) (S.singleton); insert ('z') (3) ({x: 1, y: 2}); // => {x: 1, y:...

This would be very cool indeed. It's somewhat related to #39.

This is an interesting idea, but it's not clear to me exactly what you're proposing. Are you suggesting that Sanctuary define `S.Nothing` and `S.Just` in terms of `S.GenericMaybe`, or are...

Both the pure function suggested by @dakom and the assertion suggested by @FranzSkuffka are good ideas! I would like to provide both, as they have different use cases.

I love this proposal. Could you provide a rough idea of how it might work in practice?

Could you provide an example of some code containing a type error, the current stack trace, and the stack trace we'd see instead were we to use stack-utils?