Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Spec abstract syntax for GC types and instructions #373
Spec abstract syntax for GC types and instructions #373
Changes from 1 commit
c7752e1
4458f9c
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is i31 really abstract? It seems that it should be considered concrete since there are values for which it is the dynamic type. Maybe instead of "concrete" we should be using "defined" or similar?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah, fair question. As far as the type system is concerned, it is in the same category as the other abstract types. This is just a syntactic distinction, not a semantic one.
Another alternative would be "specific" vs "nonspecific"/"generic", but that has the same awkwardness wrt i31.
Maybe there is a better pair of adjectives, but so far I can't think of any. I don't think "defined" works, because the opposite would then be "undefined". Plus, I already need "defined type" for something else.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Maybe "declared" and "undeclared"? "undeclared" seems accurate to describe all the built-in types that are not declared/defined in the type section, but idk if we have precedent talking about declarations at all.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right, I think we don't currently talk about "declarations" anywhere. But more importantly, "undeclared" still has this strong connotation of being erroneous, doesn't it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm maybe, although not nearly as much as "undefined" IMO. Maybe "declared" and "built in" would work?
Anyway, I don't think figuring out the perfect names here should block landing this.