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

Require an ok status for a response #1060

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
May 24, 2017
Merged

Conversation

annevk
Copy link
Member

@annevk annevk commented May 12, 2017

This changes both WebAssembly.compile and WebAssembly.instantiate to be
both more clear about response requirements and require an ok status.

Fixes #1039.

@annevk
Copy link
Member Author

annevk commented May 12, 2017

Once there's a more formal specification we should deduplicate this.

annevk added 2 commits May 12, 2017 16:02
This changes both WebAssembly.compile and WebAssembly.instantiate to be
both more clear about response requirements and require an ok status.

Fixes #1039.
@annevk annevk force-pushed the annevk/response-requirements branch from fe7a092 to 1ea453f Compare May 12, 2017 14:05
@@ -60,15 +60,18 @@ as described in the [`WebAssembly.Module` constructor](#webassemblymodule-constr
On success, the `Promise` is [fulfilled](http://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-fulfillpromise)
with the resulting `WebAssembly.Module` object. On failure, the `Promise` is
[rejected](http://tc39.github.io/ecma262/#sec-rejectpromise) with a
`WebAssembly.CompileError`.
`WebAssembly.CompileError` or `TypeError`, depending on the type of failure.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Nit: should we say "depending on the type of failure, as it will be clarified further below"

... or something to that extent?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I went with what we had for instantiate, but happy to change both in this manner if others agree. Eventually we need to redo both these descriptions in a more formal matter once you all figure out how you want to define your objects (see #1048).

@annevk
Copy link
Member Author

annevk commented May 23, 2017

Anyone else have any feedback?

@annevk annevk merged commit d1a7ae0 into master May 24, 2017
@annevk annevk deleted the annevk/response-requirements branch May 24, 2017 04:51
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.

3 participants