Gwendolyn

That sanity check does indeed seem rather useless (any encoding errors will hopefully be caught at a later point anyways) and wrong in at least two ways: It appears to...

Oh yeah, you are right. It took me a bit to look up the spec and write that up, and by the time I wrote that last part I had...

Relocations for call_indirect (and func types in general) are being implemented in #1525 @binji I'd be interested in implementing something like the `i32.const $foo` syntax as well, but we probably...

Do you think a spec proposal to add named data segments and to resolve data segment names to their addresses would have any chance of being accepted? Annotations would work...

I had been thinking that in normal mode it would work the same as in normal assembly files, i.e. just resolve to the address, and in relocatable mode it would...

@binji I like that syntax, I think we would also need `table-elem=` or something like it for table elements, and a way to name table elements. If you think it's...

> Cool! Easiest way to start is to open an issue in WebAssembly/design with a little background, and a proposed syntax. Then we can discuss it a little bit there...

#1348 proposes a syntax for typed data. Why do you think WAT will never be satisfactory for writing code?

@binji those are both good ideas, I'll edit them in. @carlsmith I don't find WAT particularly verbose in comparison with other assembly languages. Sure you could shorten the opcode mnemonics,...

@carlsmith The annotations proposal is here: https://github.com/WebAssembly/annotations/blob/master/proposals/annotations/Overview.md. It is intended as a way to encode custom sections in the text format, but it only defines the syntax of annotations, not...