Manos Koukoutos

I still believe we do not need `noextern`. We can include `(ref.null extern)` in `externref`.

A while back @rossberg suggested introducing a `struct` type for consistency with `array`. It was argued then (including by myself) that this does not add anything to the language. However,...

> @manoskouk, I believe that wouldn't be forward-compatible. For example, if we later introduce type imports `$t

I think this is a very nice way to consolidate the ideas discussed in this thread, as well as around `i31` and a potential null type. One thing we should...

@MaxGraey In V8, we plan to optimize bounds checks away in some cases. For example in a loop of the form `for (int i = 0; i < array.length; i++)...

I see a couple of issues here: - We introduce circular dependencies between the global and element sections through `global.get` and `array.init_from_elem`. - We introduce dependencies from any section that...

Another question for `array.init_from_data` is: How should integer values bigger than one byte be interpreted in the data section? We could interpret them as LEB128 to be consistent with other...

Update: `array.init_from_data` is now available in V8. As usual, it is specified in our [V8 spec document](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DklC3qVuOdLHSXB5UXghM_syCh-4cMinQ50ICiXnK3Q). Note: For now we implemented the version which automatically includes the canonical rtt...

If we allow these expressions as constant, we must be careful how we specify their interaction with dropped segments, which could allow them to observe mutable state.

Conceptually yes, but so far we had only had pure constant expressions, so evaluation time did not matter. Since now it is possible to invoke a constant instance of `array.new_elem/data`...