Added FsUnitTyped module + tests

[sergey-tihon]

Added typed version of FsUnit (created by @forki) as separate FsUnitTyped module.

Who want to see it packed in FsUnit distrib?
// cc: @forki

• Discuss publicly that this feature is requiried
• Add documentation to FsUnitTyped
• Check what open issues can fixed in FsUnitTyped by design and add appropriate unit tests

[tpetricek]

Yes yes yes yes yes yes please yesss!!!

[Unrelated rambling]
I would love it if you could also reference FsUnit just as a single file using the neat Paket file dependencies. This would avoid a bit of pain with configuring binding redirects and there really is no need for having to get a whole nuget package for this.
[/Unrelated rambling]

[sergey-tihon]

@tpetricek you already can reference FsUnit.fs as single file
http://fsprojects.github.io/FsUnit/Paket.html

the same true for FsUnit.Typed.fs after merging this PR

[tpetricek]

Woohoo!

[CraigStuntz]

First, I'm really happy to see this change!

Second, although using strong typed references does make things much better, it would be great to avoid Assert.AreEqual altogether, because the implementation looks like this. I've opened an issue on NUnit about fixing that, but it may take a long time to implement.

[sergey-tihon]

@CraigStuntz So, you prefer something like this:

    [<DebuggerStepThrough>]
    let shouldEqual (expected : 'a) (actual : 'a) = 
        Assert.True((expected = actual), sprintf "Expected: %A\nActual: %A" expected actual)

instead of Assert.AreEqual?

[CraigStuntz]

@sergey-tihon I think I do, but I'm wondering if anyone uses FsUnit to test C# code? If so, not sure if Assert.True(expect.Equals(actual), ... would be better? Almost anything seems better than going into the Assert.AreEqual code, though.

[sergey-tihon]

@CraigStuntz We can assume that nobody use FsUnit from C#.
At least I do not see any sense to do it.

We need to chose better way from F# perspective