Define instruction set about design HOT 10 CLOSED

Yes please. I was looking for ISA document for last half an hour! :)

from design.

Once #200 is merged then I'd be more than willing to start on this.

from design.

The AST semantics document does given an overview with roughly that organization, though it is informal. We are planning on developing a formal specification (with operational semantics!) that will describe the operations in more detail.

from design.

#245 created a standalone Types section, which makes some progress here.

from design.

#200 is merged, and as mentioned above, #245 makes several improvements. What do you think of the current text?

from design.

It's looking a lot better! Seems like you're starting to arrive at a fairly complete set of instructions/features. (Hopefully I can start contributing more, been swamped with job transition recently.) How do you feel about rethinking the organization of that document to start grouping specifications & instructions into even more clear functional sections (memory, pointers, functions, mathematics, and control flow)?

from design.

I think we basically already have functional sections like what you describe, for Linear memory, Calls, Integer operations, Floating point operations, and so on. The thing that feels the most out of place to me is "Expressions with control flow". That hasn't been a high priority because it's an open question whether we actually want those expressions at all (#239 etc.) but if you want to reorganize it I wouldn't mind :-).

from design.

What do you think of the current organization, ignoring expressions with control flow?

from design.

Ping?

from design.

Closing; expressions with control flow and control flow in general are being discussed elsewhere, and the remaining specific suggestions here are implemented. If the original reporter or anyone else has any more suggestions, please file a new issue!

from design.