Stavros Korokithakis

I agree, I think there's a lot of complexity here that isn't apparent at a first glance. I will defer to whatever way you want to handle this.

Thank you for this, it sounds extremely interesting. I would be open to merging some (or all) of the functionality, but it would have to be piecemeal as one big...

I know, it just touches so many things that it's hard to review together :/

Hmm, this is interesting. How would it work for disparate types, such as a list and a dict, or an int and a string?

That's up to @keleshev, although my preference would be to stop supporting it sooner rather than later. About this PR, I'm worried that the result would be a bit too...

Hmm, yes, it's certainly better, but I'm worried about the lack of consistency between 1 and 2 (they basically do completely different things. Also, 2 is rather more convoluted than...

Hmm, true. Maybe a better approach would be a way to "include" a Schema collection's keys into another Schema?

Ah, I see what you mean. Yes, what you are describing is a specific extension of the schema, which I agree is valuable, but I don't think the `compose` method...

Sorry, I just now noticed that I haven't replied to this. I will address this shortly.

> By "lower-level" do you mean that users ought to have "finer" control over the merging behavior? @rmorshea Yes, basically I am worried that composing right now gives no control...