You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
I'm revisiting this proposal a few months later, and I'm wondering: could this proposal be better specified in terms of raw bytes? Currently, it seems largely spec'd in terms of a JSON-like format, but IMHO that doesn't really seem like it's as small as it could be. For one, it could leverage LEB128 much like WASM does and in a similar fashion. It also doesn't need to keep type names or even operator names as strings, so I feel being a bit more binary could realize the proposal's intent a little better.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I'm revisiting this proposal a few months later, and I'm wondering: could this proposal be better specified in terms of raw bytes? Currently, it seems largely spec'd in terms of a JSON-like format, but IMHO that doesn't really seem like it's as small as it could be. For one, it could leverage LEB128 much like WASM does and in a similar fashion. It also doesn't need to keep type names or even operator names as strings, so I feel being a bit more binary could realize the proposal's intent a little better.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: