Phillip Schanely

> Just wanted to comment maybe a maybe stupid idea that is to have extra Interfaces for a subset of the builting api that we know that works well. One...

Oh wow, you got quite far on your own. Let me answer your immediate question, and then will try to find a little time to review and say more things...

Indeed; I recall some of that! In general, CrossHair should be able to construct via the signatures on `__new__` and `__init__` appropriately. Even after construction, though, I expect some additional...

So glad that someone else has thought of this too! I've been following annotated-types for a bit, and [talking a little](https://github.com/annotated-types/annotated-types/issues/9#issuecomment-1307515523) about a CrossHair integration. Even without contracts, crosshair could...

> I would like to do this Yay! I think this kind of content is SO valuable for people considering/evaluating tools like CrossHair. Don't hesitate to reach out with questions...

Oh, and if it wasn't already obvious to others, multiple people could do this and get credit!

> Ping @pschanely - fyi there are some interface changes from the previous draft, both in how you register the backend and in that we now expect a global context...

Yup, Zac's on the ball; draw-time will be too early for CrossHair. And @tybug thanks - it's not you. Looks like I aleady broke my plugin already with mainline changes....

@tybug I hooked up tybug/provider-plugins-2 to the latest versions of CrossHair and crosshair-hypothesis; and made some additional changes to both. (please pull latest) Some of those updates will hopefully reduce...

I can provide something like that function; in fact I'd already drafted one [here](https://github.com/pschanely/hypothesis-crosshair/blob/fdcd97b5c8e4ecd563b1aa949ddf8b59fd4ce42b/hypothesis_crosshair_provider/crosshair_provider.py#L182), thinking I might need it. I'm just not clear on a reasonable way to integrate. I...