Add signatures to all stub files about purescript HOT 2 CLOSED

Thanks for reaching out @MatthijsBlom. I think this is reasonable and I see other languages do this as well:

• https://github.com/exercism/haskell/blob/main/exercises/practice/hello-world/src/HelloWorld.hs
• https://github.com/exercism/fsharp/blob/main/exercises/practice/hello-world/HelloWorld.fs

Feel free to start on a pull request.

I suppose it would be nice that the stub builds and raises an error indicating the function needs to be implemented. Something along the lines of: https://github.com/exercism/haskell/blob/main/exercises/practice/bob/src/Bob.hs

from purescript.

Great. I'll get started on a PR sometime in the near future.

I suppose it would be nice that the stub builds and raises an error indicating the function needs to be implemented.

Yes. I see four options:

• Use ?todo, which raises a compile error, which is 👍, but also prevents a successful build, which is 😢.
• Use crashWith, which requires Partial 👎 and thereby breaks the build 😢.
• Use Undefined.undefined, which allows for build 👍 but results in an inscrutable runtime error 👎.
• Use unsafeThrow, which allows for build 👍 and gives a slightly better runtime error 🤷.

In my experience a successful build is important to get the language server going, so I guess we should go with unsafeThrow and accept its short-lived import and normalization of unsafe.

from purescript.