interface-types
interface-types copied to clipboard
WebAssembly
From the explainer: > Validating a Web IDL Bindings section primarily involves type checking all the contained binding expressions relative to the respective source and destination tuple types of the...
This is intended to extract an explicit discussion point about polyfilling this proposal today. A good bit of discussion about this happened in https://github.com/WebAssembly/webidl-bindings/issues/25 already which led to https://github.com/WebAssembly/webidl-bindings/pull/26, and...
There was some discussion about using strings in the imports+exports, as well as immediates to call instructions in the (soon to be proposed) interface adapter function instructions. There's a few...
Currently if you're passing an array of data from WebAssembly to JS (such as strings or a list of bytes) you have the option of using outgoing bindings like `copy`,...
In the [snowman-bindings presentation](https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1wtAknL-UJWDoIgSbyF5paTBSpVVj-fKU4tiHMxJbSzE/edit#slide=id.p) at the June meeting, one of the proposed binding is for enum/union/sum types. I'm wondering, should these types be statically guaranteed to be valid? For instance,...
Should we model weak imports as a Bindings-layer feature? It's a feature that can be expressed in terms of bindings, it affects how modules are wired together, and it's a...
The current proposal allows WebIDL functions to be invoked on WebIDL values transparently and efficiently constructed from wasm linear memory, but what if what's in hand is a `ref.host` that...
