Ross Tate

> If we accept the premise that every non-trivial Wasm program will have a central coordinating top-level that knows all of the required subtyping relations, then that is a strong...

No one is proposing that. I was responding to the comment that removing `rtt.canon` would be churn by pointing out that `rtt.canon` has not actually been implemented. V8 needs to...

Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your intent. I agree that the logical next step would be to adopt #119; I was just trying to break the nominal-vs-structural discussion down into more...

I think we need to have a meeting where we develop a more concerted plan to address performance issues. For example, we have preliminary data that suggests implementing `call_ref` differently...

> especially considering the structural type-equality check in cross-instance `call_indirect` This is addressable in a (smoothly) backwards-compatible matter, so I would not let this concern outweigh very important things like...

The reasoning seems to be that interface types should restrict communication between components to information that all languages can retain in their obvious representation without loss. That seems to be...

> This isn't the first time this sort of question has popped up and it won't be the last. In all these sorts of questions, there is an inherent tension...

I'm not sure I follow the counter argument. The consumer is generally free to do whatever it wants with the data. If you didn't provide `lower_canonicalize_nan`, it could still canonicalize...

The choice I suggested was: * Yes, but some programs in some languages will need to not use the default mapping for `f64` and instead map to some more complete...

In fact, the (non-default) lowerer for JS could lower to the number type for non-NaNs and lower to BigInt for NaNs.