Andreas Rossberg

@juj, wouldn't it be trivial for producers to generate such debugging code themselves, on top of non-trapping instructions?

@kmiller68, note that such a change only removes failure cases. In that sense it is almost a conservative extension of the existing semantics.

Hm, not sure how we can write tests for that without defining 4 billion tags in a single module. We would clearly run into implementation limits much earlier. And if...

Interesting point. We could do that, but I don't think it's really necessary, as both forms currently serve very different purposes: throw_ref *rethrows* a caught exception, it is the primitive...

Hm, if the coroutines implement green threads, wouldn't that correspond to injecting asynchronous exceptions? When would that be needed or desirable?

Chiming in as well, I'm also not super-happy with the terminology choices made by wit: * Why use different terminology than the underlying component model and Wasm itself? Doesn't that...

> Certainly when talking about a specific component, it's more natural to say "what's the signature of that component?" than "what's the world targeted by that component?". Yes, in particular,...

> In common component systems, "interfaces" are required or provided by a component. In the classic UML diagrams you see everywhere ([e.g. here](https://www.visual-paradigm.com/guide/uml-unified-modeling-language/what-is-component-diagram/)), they show up as these little lollipops...

Another classic example is the Scheme/Lisp family of languages.

@titzer, to clarify, module "fragments" would very much imply byte-level concatenation as well. A fragment as discussed in the meeting has no semantic meaning, it's just a piece of a...