Add Recorded<Event<T>> array factory method

[beeth0ven]

Hi there~~

This PR is an extension to #1510.

Introducing Recorded<Event<T>> array factory method:

extension Recorded {
    
    public static func events<T>(_ recordedEvents: Recorded<Event<T>>...) -> [Recorded<Event<T>>] 
        where Value == Event<T> { ... }
    
    public static func events<T>(_ recordedEvents: [Recorded<Event<T>>]) -> [Recorded<Event<T>>] 
        where Value == Event<T> { ...  }
}

This may help if you don't want to declare the type when create recorded events:

- let correctMessages: [Recorded<Event<Int>>] = [
-     .next(210, 2),
-     .next(220, 3),
-     .next(230, 4),
-     .next(240, 5),
-     .completed(250)
- ]

+ let correctMessages = Recorded.events(
+     .next(210, 2),
+     .next(220, 3),
+     .next(230, 4),
+     .next(240, 5),
+     .completed(250)
+ )

[RxPullRequestBot]

	1 Warning
⚠️	Big PR

Generated by 🚫 Danger

[beeth0ven]

I'm not sure if we should use this method to create empty array or single element array?

// empty array
- let events: [Recorded<Event<Int>>] = []
+ let events = Recorded<Event<Int>>.events()

// single element array
- let messages = [
-    Recorded.error(250, testError, Int.self)
- ]
+ let messages = Recorded.events(
+    .error(250, testError, Int.self)
+ )

[kzaher]

Adds Recorded<Event<T>> array factory method in RxTest. #1531

[kzaher]

Maybe formulate this sentence in some impersonal form:

Convenience method for recording a sequence of events. Its primary use case is improving readability in cases where type inference is unable to deduce the type of recorded events.

I'm hoping somebody will provide us some help with the docs, I'm not pleased with my formulation either.

[kzaher]

Same issue with docs.

[kzaher]

Maybe just say:

- parameter recordedEvents: Method return value.

[kzaher]

Docs.

[beeth0ven]

Thanks @kzaher

I've improved the documentation as you requested.