Consider exporting a Signal type

[jorroll]

As the name suggests, this is a feature request to define and export export type Signal<T> = () => T (I'm not actually set on a specific name for this type). While this is a very simple type alias, I think using this type alias throughout the codebase would make reading solid-js code and jsDocs generated by vscode easier. At the moment, when looking at a type declaration, sometimes I need to remind myself that the someFunction<T>(value: () => T) declaration is expecting a solid-js signal (someFunction<T>(value: Signal<T>) would be more intuitive I think).

[ryansolid]

Sounds good. As long as it wouldn't encourage people to use signals createSignal where they could just use functions. I'm still learning TS best practices 2 years later.

[jorroll]

As long as it wouldn't encourage people to use signals createSignal where they could just use functions.

Ya, I understand this concern and I honestly don't know. I also must admit that I don't think I yet fully understand how signals compare with simple functions in Solid. I think I saw in another discussion that regular functions can be inserted inside JSX and sometimes will produce the same effect as a signal. I haven't yet explored this though.

[rturnq]

I think Signal would be confusing as it would imply you need to use the signal primitive and I can't think of a scenario where one would want or need to restrict like that.

I can see the benefit of having a type alias which represents a value getter. Having arguments and return types which are functions can be a little confusing to look at so this would help sort of flatten those cases. I'm not sure what a good name is though: Value, Getter, Reader, Source some combination?