Andy Walker

Of course, if there's another short-term approach I've overlooked, feel free to chime in with suggestions, but we probably still want a V2 discussion started.

#49 (mentioned by @breml above) is also worth discussing, though it's basically the same as option 2 above, and I'd be more inclined to adopt the `Equal()` convention rather than...

> A very simple solution might just be to format the time and compare the strings. Then you (the engineer) can be explicit about what's being compared. This could potentially...

This is one of those cases where API simplicity comes at the cost of hidden complexity. Saying `is.Equal(testStruct, actualStruct)` is very straightforward and (usually) works well enough, but it's deceptively...

I have thoughts, but no firm conclusions yet: > To me, this sounds like a rabbit hole `is` should not jump into. So far, the implementation of `is` has been...

I think a generated `Edit` type could work well for this, where it has non-returning methods that add to an error accumulator behind the scenes. Alternatively, it could be just...

After a bit of fiddling with this, I have a generated builder pattern I'd be interested in feedback on. Given the following schema ``` struct Msg { cost @0 :Resources;...

After mulling this over and going over the discussion in #64, which has a lot of overlap, I have a few different ideas, and was curious about the style and...

Here you go!

Feel free to check out [e4eab01](https://github.com/jackc/puddle/pull/40/commits/e4eab01148653bb0400d00a0ce60bad8de718694) to verify that the original tests pass.