this PR will likely need to regenerate a bunch of the generated code to pass

I stand corrected. pulled your branch and verified this is good. sorta surprised none of the generated code hit this path. I'll test this manually on some of my fbs files and then we can ship it!

before I merge this, @fliiiix would you give this a quick gut check? I can't tell which is better, to change the Create* function name, or to fix the pack function. My gut tells me that fixing pack would be less disruptive, if possibly less correct.

A few notes:

The pyi files should stay in sync, so this would also need to be changed:

    stub << "def Create" + namer_.Type(*struct_def)
         << "(builder: flatbuffers.Builder";

A test would be good, it a bit of a red flag that it doesn't show up in any generated files :D

I can't tell which is better

Based on my understanding as long as they match its fine but if we look at namer.h i would say the pack function is more correct and it should be namer_.Function on both ends.

@peter-soos thanks for the great issue with a easy to reproduce case ✨

I agree that namer_.Function is more "right" - just worried that the free function is more used (and visible) -- merging this change may break more peoples' code than keeping the existing wrong name.

just worried that the free function is more used

good point, i personally would risk it based on the assumption that not a lot of people use structs and even less use _ in the name (because for most names Type and Function are equal)