Add StoreBundle<T> type

[mustevenplay]

Summary

Here I added StoreBundle<T>; a useful type extracted directly from the createStore function's return type:
type StoreBundle<T> = [get: Store<T>, set: SetStoreFunction<T>]

How did you test this change?

This type is identical to the return type of the createStore function, so nothing really should change, besides the fact that it's definitely more portable, more compact, and depending on who we ask, more readable.
All tests have been successfully ran, though.

[changeset-bot]

🦋 Changeset detected

Latest commit: bcc0d5d

The changes in this PR will be included in the next version bump.

This PR includes changesets to release 2 packages

Name	Type
solid-js	Patch
test-integration	Patch

Not sure what this means? Click here to learn what changesets are.

Click here if you're a maintainer who wants to add another changeset to this PR

[ryansolid]

This seems reasonable.. just thinking about naming.. Do the other Signal accessor pair have a name? Maybe consistent naming won't be possible until 2.0. Would love someone who looks at the TS conventions of this repo take a look.

[mustevenplay]

The current return type of createSignal is Signal<T>, which is alias to [get: Accessor<T>, set: Setter<T>]. In my opinion, the chosen names Accessor and Setter might be kind of ambiguous, to which I suggest we might want to try coming up with a convention that could unify return types of functions like createSignal or createStore with a naming such as "FooBundle" (like in this case, StoreBundle). Keeping the current naming could be a good idea too, but I could as well suggest to give it a specific name for each return type.
These conventions applied on the current Signal<T> type would look like this:

type SignalBundle<T> = [get: SignalAccessor<T>, set: SignalSetter<T>]

[ryansolid]

Thanks. I'm going with StoreReturn. But I've merged it as the base.