Andreas Rossberg

In JS engines the prototype is stored as part of the hidden class/map/shape of an object. That corresponds rather directly to an RTT from the proposal, and they are in...

@jakobkummerow: > I think on a very high level, there are two possible paths we could take: Actually, there are two separate questions: what prototypes Wasm objects start out with,...

@tlively, a fence is not tied to any memory, but commits *all* accesses (which may involve multiple memories or even other state than memories in the future) that have occurred...

@tlively, all other atomic operators operate on a specific memory -- via the memory index 0 that is currently implicit in the instruction but may be explicit once we allow...

Aliasing seems fine. We could restrict use of the old name to the Table constructor, just like we do for the "initial" limit in the JS Types proposal.

@lars-t-hansen, interesting. I would of course be happy to retire `anyfunc`. Maybe V8 could accept both for a transition period and implement a counter to see whether `anyfunc` is used...

@gahaas, how about you revive this PR, and change it to aliasing the name? For process reasons, could be made part of the JS type reflection proposal.

I'm indifferent on having such a section, but like to throw in a note on the design of the S-expr syntax. In Wasm, the head of every subexpression always is...

I'd say for the same reason that e.g. tables or modules do not currently support inquiring similar type information. All this should be added, but requires designing a coherent approach...

Perhaps we should just byte and settle the type representation. In the other discussion I cannot find anymore I suggested simply encoding the type AST JSON-style, with objects and strings....