David Chambers

> - gt/gte ( a => a > 5 ) There's a wonderful specification named “Fantasy Land” that I hope Ramda will one day support. :stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye: Were Ramda to support...

If we're okay with `R.mergeAll` we should be okay with `R.concatAll`. Interestingly, if `R.concat` merged string maps (which it should) we wouldn't need `R.merge` or `R.mergeAll`.

Good point, @buzzdecafe. I was forgetting that in the `[]` case we need to know the empty value.

> Why string maps as opposed to other objects? JavaScript objects are used in one of two ways: as string maps, or as records. It doesn't make sense to consider...

The implementation is likely to work for any old (or young!) objects. I'm just making a distinction between what we intend to support and what we would _actually_ support.

Can we see the type signatures?

@dustinws, do you happen to know which (old) version of the Fantasy Land spec Ramda supports?

Before we can answer these questions, @dustinws, we need to determine the versions of the Fantasy Land spec with which Ramda is intended to be compatible.

> I just think it will be confusing unless we point to a specific version of Traversable (perhaps a link to that part of the spec at the last version...

@dmitriz, you might prefer [`S.all`][1]: ```javascript > S.all (S.lt (5)) ([1, 5]) false > S.all (S.lt (5)) ([1, 2, 3]) true > S.all (S.lt (5)) ({a: 1, b: 5}) false...