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

Revive legacy JS API and restructure legacy spec directory #303

Merged
merged 5 commits into from
May 24, 2024

Conversation

aheejin
Copy link
Member

@aheejin aheejin commented May 23, 2024

This adds core and js-api directory in document/legacy/exceptions, moves all core spec files into core/, and restores the deleted legacy JS API files in js-api/.

The core legacy spec only contains the EH instructions, which is easier to view, but it is hard to precisely carve out the modified part from the JS API file, so this adds the whole file for the legacy spec.

- Renames `document/legacy/exceptions` to
  `document/legacy/exception-handling` to match the proposal name.
- This adds `core` and `js-api` directory in
  `document/legacy/exception-handling`, moves all core spec files into
  `core/`, and restores the deleted legacy JS API files in `js-api/`.

The core legacy spec only contains the EH instructions, which is easier
to view, but it is hard to precisely carve out the modified part from
the JS API file, so this adds the whole file for the legacy spec.
@aheejin aheejin requested review from dschuff and rossberg May 23, 2024 00:57
Copy link
Member

@rossberg rossberg left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Personally, I'd prefer keeping it as just "exceptions" (since it's shorter and because it's not just the catch mechanism). But I'm fine either way.

Copy link
Member

@dschuff dschuff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

LGTM, don't really have any opinion on the naming.

@aheejin
Copy link
Member Author

aheejin commented May 23, 2024

I'm not strongly opinionated on the directory name either. The main reason I renamed it was in case there will be other proposals part of which may end up in this legacy directory, it might be better if you conform to the original proposal names to prevent any confusion.... But I guess there will likely be no proposals going through a "journey" like this, after all? 🤷🏻

@aheejin
Copy link
Member Author

aheejin commented May 23, 2024

Will revert back to exceptions for now then.

@aheejin aheejin merged commit f3ebba3 into WebAssembly:main May 24, 2024
6 checks passed
@aheejin aheejin deleted the legacy_js_api branch May 24, 2024 00:06
@rossberg
Copy link
Member

Yeah, I sincerely hope this doesn't become a regular thing. :) FWIW, I don't think proposal names are highly relevant for later spec matters, since they are historic and sometimes become inaccurate when a proposal evolves, see e.g. "bulk memory ops", "threads", etc.

aheejin added a commit to aheejin/exception-handling that referenced this pull request May 24, 2024
 WebAssembly#303 broke the core spec links. This fixes it by adding `core/` to the
directory links and also adds the JS API spec link to the web page.
aheejin added a commit that referenced this pull request May 25, 2024
#303 broke the core spec links. This fixes it by adding `core/` to the
directory links and also adds the JS API spec link to the web page.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

3 participants