Andreas Rossberg

Interfaces/traits or other forms of multiple inheritance are more difficult, and do not directly map to simple Wasm constructs. In general, you'll have to do what a native-code backend does,...

You meant October 12? :) Many of those are already listed in the Post-MVP doc in some form, I'll add the others. > 3. initialize-once globals I don't remember this...

One of the known problems with function identity is that it invalidates optimisations like specialisation or any code transformation duplicating/merging function definitions that are referenced.

@wingo: > for a basic ability which is present under the hood (equality and hashing). Well, the reason for not exposing this is that it in fact may not be...

There are several instructions: `array.new_fixed` (initialises from stack operands), `array.new_data` (initialises from data segment), `array.new_elem` (initialises from element segment). Clearly, we cannot allow `array.set` or `array.copy` on immutable arrays. We...

> I'd want that attribute to be reflected in the generated Wasm. I'm afraid that is a misunderstanding of Wasm's intended role. Wasm is a low-level language abstracting hardware, a...

I agree that the asymmetry is displeasing. Open and closed have are rather overloaded terms wrt to types. In particular, a closed type is normally understood as one that doesn't...

Well, `nosub` would be misleading, because it generally _is_ a subtype, it just is a _final_ one. Thus my suggestion to call it `sub_final` (because `finalsub` puts the primary thing...

Yeah, nonfinal also seems odd, since it makes it sound as if the special case (final) was the normal case.

It is the normal case for types that do not have (non-trivial) supertypes (thus the shorthand), but it is not the normal case for types that actually need to write...