Andreas Rossberg

@ngzhian: > The actual semantics of the operators will be "subscripted" by the mode. I'm thinking that in the Numerics section, right now we have a "Relaxed operator" header. It...

@ngzhian, something like that, but without an "otherwise" and inverting the terminology like @conrad-watt suggested. I would also keep these annotations separate from side conditions, since they are a different...

Hm, I thought the idea was that deterministic mode assigns deterministic semantics to these, rather than forbidding the instructions?

Yeah, I'm afraid there still is a bit of work left to do for the spec, since the additions to the numerics section are still missing much of their prose...

The text is perhaps somewhat confusing. What it's getting at is that this proposal introduces a new class of non-determinism that we did not have before, namely one that is...

Not too late to improve the explaner, but technically it still amounts to non-determinism, only of a more complicated form (vectors of sets of behaviours instead of just sets of...

Yes, except that Wasm deliberately has no notion of "initialization of the abstract machine", and it's not at all clear what that would mean, i.e., when it would happen, or...

No, that's not what it is. It rather works along the lines of ``` IMPLEMENTATION_DEFINED_ONE_OF([ NONDETERMINISTIC_ONE_OF(X1, Y1), NONDETERMINISTIC_ONE_OF(X2, Y2), NONDETERMINISTIC_ONE_OF(X3, Y3), ]) ``` Thus a vector of sets of possibilities....

> Where can I find `NONDETERMINISTIC_ONE_OF`? That just is the form of nondeterminism we already have in Wasm 1.0/2.0. Neither operator exists in the actual spec, I believe that's just...

> Can you point me at a place in the spec Well, as I just mentioned, a proper definition of this appears to be still missing from the draft spec....