Skip to content
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

Prettify section names #638

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 18, 2016
Merged

Prettify section names #638

merged 3 commits into from
Apr 18, 2016

Conversation

rossberg
Copy link
Member

@rossberg rossberg commented Apr 5, 2016

[Retargeted #635 to 0xB branch.]

As suggested in #623. Better suggestions for some of the names are welcome.

@rossberg rossberg mentioned this pull request Apr 5, 2016

### Indirect Function Table section
### Indirection section
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How about "table"?

@sunfishcode
Copy link
Member

"Type": Are there plans to use this section for types other than function types? If not, "types" is over-general and confusing, and leaving it as "Signatures" would be better.

"Function": How about "Declaration"?

"Code", "Data": I prefer "Function Bodies" and "Data Segments". Characters are cheap in this context, and being more descriptive helps newcomers as well as people who have focuses besides the wasm binary format.

@lukewagner
Copy link
Member

I'm not sure these strings, whatever their value, will appreciably help anyone stepping through the binary in a hex editor. So I like the terseness (and lower case).

@rossberg
Copy link
Member Author

rossberg commented Apr 6, 2016

@sunfishcode, yes, we anticipate other uses of the types section, e.g. consider user-defined struct types in the future. This ties in with #640. "Declarations": hm, not sure, as most other sections declare things, too. Re descriptiveness: agreed with Luke.

@lukewagner, changed indirect to table. I thought that may be a bit too generic a name, but with your recent suggestions, it actually makes a lot of sense. (Although in that case, it should probably be tables. :)

@lukewagner
Copy link
Member

Heh, true; that PR would add an s. lgtm thanks

@rossberg
Copy link
Member Author

rossberg commented Apr 6, 2016

@lukewagner, or perhaps we should just use singular for all section ids, like we do in prose?

@lukewagner
Copy link
Member

True; the 's' isn't really adding a lot of value.

@rossberg
Copy link
Member Author

rossberg commented Apr 6, 2016

Changed to singular.

@rossberg
Copy link
Member Author

Any objections landing this?

@titzer
Copy link

titzer commented Apr 18, 2016

lgtm

* [Names](#names-section) section
* [Export](#export-section) section
* [Start](#start-section) section
* [Code](#code-section) section
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Why not text? ;-)

@jfbastien
Copy link
Member

lgtm

1 similar comment
@lukewagner
Copy link
Member

lgtm

@rossberg rossberg merged commit 07c9074 into binary_0xb Apr 18, 2016
@rossberg rossberg deleted the section-ids branch April 18, 2016 16:33
lukewagner pushed a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 28, 2016
lukewagner added a commit that referenced this pull request Apr 29, 2016
* Merge pull request #648 from WebAssembly/current_memory

Add current_memory operator

* Reorder section size field (#639)

* Prettify section names (#638)

* Extensible encoding of function signatures (#640)

* Prettify section names

* Restructure encoding of function signatures

* Revert "[Binary 11] Update the version number to 0xB."

* Leave index space for growing the number of base types

* Comments addressed

* clarify how export/import names convert to JS strings (#569) (#573)

* When embedded in the web, clarify how export/import names convert to JS strings (#569)

* Fixes suggested by @jf

* Address more feedback

Added a link to http://monsur.hossa.in/2012/07/20/utf-8-in-javascript.html.  Simplified the decoding algorithm thanks to Luke's feedback.

* Access to proprietary APIs apart from HTML5 (#656)

* comments

* Merge pull request #641 from WebAssembly/postorder_opcodes

Postorder opcodes

* fix some text that seems to be in the wrong order (#670)

* Clarify that br_table has a branch argument (#664)

* Add explicit argument counts (#672)

* Add explicit arities

* Rename

* Replace uint8 with varint7 in form field (#662)

This needs to be variable-length.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants