This repository was archived by the owner on Apr 25, 2025. It is now read-only.
Add prose for typing rule of try-delegate. #237
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Also slightly adjusted notation to match the formal overview. Why WIP: The prose is finished, but while trying to add explanatory notes, I couldn't find a reference in the spec to the validation label that the frame pushes to the context.
rossberg
reviewed
Sep 20, 2022
document/core/valid/instructions.rst
Outdated
| The :ref:`label index <syntax-labelidx>` after |DELEGATE| refers to a label surrounding the :ref:`try-delegate <syntax-try-delegate>` instruction. The furthest label it can refer to is the label inserted by the frame. For example, :math:`\TRY~\dots~\DELEGATE~0` may appear without any explicitly surrounding block, in which case the label 0 refers to the label of the frame. | ||
|
|
||
| .. todo:: | ||
| Add references/links to "the label of the frame": Where is this label introduced? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Frames represent calls and are unrelated to labels. A function body implicitly is a block, that's why it has an outermost label.
But in fact, I'd remove this entire note. It basically just explains again how labels and functions work, which is not specific to delegate. If we did that here, then we would have to do that for every br instruction.
document/core/valid/instructions.rst
Outdated
| }{ | ||
| C \vdashinstrseq \TRY~\blocktype~\instr^\ast~\DELEGATE~l : [t_1^\ast]\to[t_2^\ast] | ||
| } | ||
|
|
||
| .. note:: | ||
| The :ref:`notation <notation-extend>` :math:`C,\CLABELS\, [t^\ast]` inserts the new label type at index :math:`0`, shifting all others. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we reuse the wording used for br and friends?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ok, switching to the wording of br.
FWIW I had copy pasted this from the note under if-else.
Addresses review comments - WebAssembly#237 (comment) - WebAssembly#237 (comment)
ioannad
changed the title
|
This should be now ready for merging, pending approval. |
rossberg
approved these changes
Nov 15, 2022
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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.
Also slightly adjusted notation to match the formal overview.
Why WIP:The prose is finished, but while trying to add explanatory notes, I couldn't find a reference in the spec to the validation label that the frame pushes to the context.EDIT:
WIP is no longer necessary after addressing review comments.