Colm Bhandal

@AndreasBBS Very cool, thank you! I've added a couple of types and created a Typescript version [here](https://gist.github.com/ColmBhandal/8d31fe2d1076f00e606c7c560319c957).

Given @lukesiedle's discovery, it would be helpful if running Storybook failed with a more informative error in the case where an addon is used and that addon does not exist...

Similar issue for me in `6.5.10`: ``` npm WARN While resolving: [email protected] npm WARN Found: [email protected] npm WARN node_modules/react npm WARN peer react@"^16.8.4 || ^17.0.0" from [email protected] npm WARN node_modules/@storybook/addon-actions/node_modules/react-inspector...

I just did a quick search and there seem to be only 4 occurrences of ``array_like`` in the code vs. 22 occurrences of ``array-like``. Note the difference between dash and...

@adriesse I tend to agree with you. I think the ideal short-medium term solution is: 1. Very short term: merge my little PR above 2. Short term: Analyse all usages...

I have been thinking about this and I wonder if the long term solution is [static duck typing](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0544/) i.e. structural types. Minimally, static duck typing will provide a much clearer...

@kanderso-nrel Definitely an example, or many, would be needed to justify such a significant introduction to the code base. I was holding off on the above comment for the past...

The ambiguity that arises from discussions like these might be eliminated by structural types aka static duck types, because their semantics are rigorously defined. I agree that it's a safer...

@wholmgren For what it's worth I think I'm with you that the type hints is probably a separate, much larger thing. For this issue to get closed as a practical...

Another perspective is that having to explicitly wrap inputs into arrays is ugly. It delegates type checking to the function's computational part rather than its type signature, so it sort...