| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This link standardizes how all the other design pages will refer to
future features (either in `FutureFeatures.md` or in a tracking issue).
All links to these upcoming features now use references at the bottom of
the doc page (as opposed to inline links or references).
Note that this change makes it very easy for the doc links to be updated
when a tracking issue is started. As all the references have a standard
format; a simple find/replace script will get everything.
This commit also makes sure that references now point to a tracking
issue if one exists. Note that this means a future CL can now delete
some of the unnecessary sections from `FutureFeatures.md`.
The only visible change from this commit is that certain broken links
are now fixed, or links pointing to a doc section now point to the
correct tracking issue.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
| |
Added brief item on multiple return.
|
| |
|
|
| |
(#837)
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
* Add Memory, Table and multi-import/export of these
* Clarify mutation of elements
* Mention CFI use case
* Clarify call_table signature mismatches
* Explicate elements section
* Change support to allow/enable
* Remove table/memory indices add global imports/exports
* Clarify host-defined (i.e., JavaScript) table elements
* s/necessary/useful
* s/will/may/
* Fix typo
* Fix typo
* Clarify that table updates are observed by all instances
* Clarify that host-defined table element values can have different signature checking
* Just 'constraints' since more detail is below
* Wordsmith DynamicLinking.md intro
* Wordsmith FutureFeatures.md
* Try to clarify wording in FutureFeatures.md
* Change 'function' to 'anyfunc'
* Fix nits
* Refine description of initializer expressions
* Remove the Definition Index Space, use (type, index) pairs as necessary
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
It was removed in #523, but was still referenced. Leave it as a high-level sketch for now.
Fixes #613.
|
| | |
|
| |\
| |
| | |
Capture of scenarios motivating feature testing.
|
| | | |
|
| | | |
|
| | |
| |
| |
| | |
- link to PostMVP.md
- replaced pronouns with giving the user a name in each scenario, and then using the appropriate pronoun. This makes cross-referencing scenarios easier, too.
|
| | |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Moved a few of the already described scenarios, trying to isolate the motivating problem from possible solutions.
Added a development time scenario and one for restrictive target environment.
|
| |/ |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|
|
This is an initial skeleton. It's important to help people understand what we mean by feature test, and we've discussed it enough that I think we have a basic agreement of *what* we want to do, just not design of exactly *how* to do it.
|