Idea: align predicate and base schemas

[frenchy64]

It might reduce confusion between e.g., int? and :int if we define one in terms of the other via -proxy-schema.

I realize the point of the the predicates is to look like spec predicates, but it's an easy mistake to make to think :any and any? are synonymous. A better example: for int? it's not obvious it doesn't support :min/max properties.

Another advantage of using proxies here is we can reduce the implementation burden on multimethods that dispatch on m/type. Instead of a defmethod for :any and any?, you could have a defmethod :any and in the default method recur via m/deref to catch the :any case.

It's convenient to proxy things like map? as [:map-of :any :any], I think all current children can stay the same.

This is just a sketch and I have no idea why the test fail.

[NoahTheDuke]

I love this idea and fully support it. I had no idea there were differences and I don't think this is mentioned in the readme.

[ikitommi]

Agree that there are real problems here:

1. people use string? instead of :string
2. lot's of extra dispatching (transformers, generators etc)

Original issue is here and I did a study on this while back, did not push it out as PR it seems 🤔. I'll pull it out and comment more. I thought that solution would remove a lot of clutter (extra mappings in error messages, transformers, generators etc), but was not happy with the end result.

Let's park this PR for now.