rust-typed-builder VS rust-vfs

derive_builder works in runtime - you have to unwrap built result. And code editors cannot use auto-import builder-types. That's why I switched to [typed-builder|https://github.com/idanarye/rust-typed-builder] which looks similar to builder-pattern but more popular.

I'm the author of the typed-builder crate (and a couple of other crates in a similar position). The name of the crate's repository on GitHub is rust-typed-builder. Does the new trademark policy mean I have to change the repository's name to typed-builder-rs or typed-builder.rs or something similar, or am I in the clear because only the repository name is has the word "rust" in it and the crate itself is only named "typed-builder"?

There are also crates which can do that for you (e.g. https://github.com/idanarye/rust-typed-builder).

I can open a PR if desired but typed-builder is a big example for me of where this would be super useful. It's a good example of using traits/type safety for compile-time guarantees but the error messages are really subpar compared to the standard Rust experience, so feels like a very arbitrary compromise on Rust's strengths.

Yes! The inspiration came from: * rust-typed-builder which is the struct equivalent of this crate. * https://users.rust-lang.org/t/typesafe-builder-design/58784

Rust Typed Builder

Of course, that still leaves the door open for cases like accidentally starting the recursion for / -- if you're worried about that, then e.g. https://github.com/manuel-woelker/rust-vfs might come handy.