Casper

> I would be happy to move this to flatbuffers itself if there's interested, but I think generating the small amount of code in this commit to allow writing wrappers...

Thanks the comparison with Yoke was helpful. I'm starting to see the point: 1. We want to generalize the storage to be from more than just `&'a[u8]`, e.g. `Rc` 2....

So I can get the following to work, the main drawback is that you have to name your storage type, e.g. `FlatbufferWithStorage::new(my_arc)`. Rust can't figure out `S = Arc` even...

I think we should think of a better design for reflection and perhaps generalize storage in the `Table` struct itself.

> Okay, everything is passing except for the Go test, and I must be blind because I cannot figure out what the Go test is failing on from looking at...

We'd probably want lazy or shallow verification if we recommend that, since this metadata is most useful when you're not sure you actually have a flatbuffer table. Also, yeah there's...

The short answer is you can't. There are possible modifications that one can do to try and build a version of this project that uses 64-bit offsets, some forks exist,...

Hello, can you help explain the design choice as to why this is a trait instead of using the existing method? Do you plan on using `Box`? I can't see...

Gotcha, so as it is right now, I'm not convinced this is useful enough to change the code generator for all our users. However, I see the value of a...

I think we should think of a better design for reflection and perhaps generalize storage in the `Table` struct itself.