Andreas Rossberg

The usefulness of subtyping is independent from downcasts, it's simply a form of type polymorphism. Not all languages with subtyping even have casts. The only reason you typically need downcasts...

PS: FWIW, our implementation in the reference interpreter already supports subtyping on continuation types, per subtyping on the underlying function types as you would expect. For example, the following is...

@codefromthecrypt, the spec repo only contains documents that have gone through the process and that the WG has officially adopted as standards. I think you mean whether dwarf support could...

Neither. We definitely don't want function coloring, i.e, a static effect system. But stack switching does not need that. In all variants of the proposal circulated so far switching stacks...

Yes, the idea was that this sets a flag associated with every stack, which `suspend` needs to check for each stack it encounters. Indeed that is an extra cost, though...

The proposal already allows both, see the section on "Naming of size limits" in the overview.

Oh, simultaneously? So, IIUC, this test defines a generic proxy as a descriptor that returns any random property? I see how this would break, but I believe such a descriptor...

If you want to stay as close to the wat format as possible, would it work to use wat + [annotations](https://github.com/WebAssembly/annotations) or would that be too unwieldy?

Well, it has the prototype and properties of a regular function, i.e., is a subclass. If WebIDL has no way to describe that then we have to invent our own....

@Ms2ger, we cannot build the conversion into Table#set, because it doesn't know the intended function type.