John Jannotti

I'd like to see us distinguish this from `abi`. Since this is an "internal object", I'd rather it was, roughly, `pt.NameTuple` or even `pt.Struct`. We should distinguish between a programming...

Would it be better to do this by introducing a new type like `pt.Array` for this purpose, since it is, as you say _internal_ not part of the A B...

I worry that providing a `verify()` method will quickly be described as something you are "supposed" to call. But as you say, they can be quite expensive. And yet, for...

What was decided about adding "too many" arguments to an ABI method? These extra bytes seem similar.

I mean, it's clearly a bug, right? You can't specify that a method maybe, sometimes, occasionally closes your files.

This opcode will be encoding several offsets, and those offsets are likely to be quite small. We should _consider_ encoding them as varints, so they consume only one byte when...

It's up for debate whether the opcode should be encoded as `switch label1 label2...` or `switch label1 label2 ... 0` That is, should we encode the number of cases, or...

> It might be more flexible/useful to have a "default" clause, so if the input value falls out of the expected range then it branches to some offset, where the...

An extra implementation note. Having thought about the idea of using varint encoding of the labels a bit more, I'll say: a) Maybe it's too much trouble, since offsets will...

Does anyone actually care about the case of more than 256 labels? I'm considering that maybe the label count should just be encoded as an unsigned byte rather than varuint.