{"action":"closed","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcanti/tcomb/issues/130","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcanti/tcomb/issues/130/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcanti/tcomb/issues/130/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/gcanti/tcomb/issues/130/events","html_url":"https://github.com/gcanti/tcomb/issues/130","id":103663971,"number":130,"title":"Allow a single type in the union combinator","user":{"login":"jgoux","id":1443499,"avatar_url":"https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/u/1443499?v=3","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux","html_url":"https://github.com/jgoux","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/jgoux/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"closed","locked":false,"assignee":null,"milestone":null,"comments":2,"created_at":"2015-08-28T07:37:22Z","updated_at":"2015-08-28T08:07:28Z","closed_at":"2015-08-28T08:07:28Z","body":"Hello again !\r\nI know it's not mathematically true , but could we allow a single type for the union combinator ?\r\nRight now it throws an error, but without it all works at expected.\r\nThis demand is for convenience purpose only, because as the code evolving, it's easier to just add types in an array than rewrite types as unions."}}