Before the managed data types extension to WebAssembly was incorporated in the standard, there was a huge debate about type equality. The end result is that if you have two types in a Wasm module that look the same, like this:

(type $t (struct i32))
(type $u (struct i32))

Then they are for all intents and purposes equivalent. When a Wasm implementation loads up a module, it has to partition the module’s types into equivalence classes. When the Wasm program references a given type by name, as in (struct.get $t 0) which would get the first field of type $t, it maps $t to the equivalence class containing $t and $u. See the spec, for more details.

This is a form of structural type equality. Sometimes this is what you want. But not always! Sometimes you want nominal types, in which no type declaration is equivalent to any other. WebAssembly doesn’t have that, but it has something close: recursive type groups. In fact, the type declarations above are equivalent to these:

(rec (type $t (struct i32)))
(rec (type $u (struct i32)))

Which is to say, each type is in a group containing just itself. One thing that this allows is self-recursion, as in:

(type $succ (struct (ref null $succ)))

Here the struct’s field is itself a reference to a $succ struct, or null (because it’s ref null and not just ref).

To allow for mutual recursion between types, you put them in the same rec group, instead of each having its own:

(rec
 (type $t (struct i32))
 (type $u (struct i32)))

Between $t and $u we don’t have mutual recursion though, so why bother? Well rec groups have another role, which is that they are the unit of structural type equivalence. In this case, types $t and $u are not in the same equivalence class, because they are part of the same rec group. Again, see the spec.

Within a Wasm module, rec gives you an approximation of nominal typing. But what about between modules? Let’s imagine that $t carries important capabilities, and you don’t want another module to be able to forge those capabilities. In this case, rec is not enough: the other module could define an equivalent rec group, construct a $t, and pass it to our module; because of isorecursive type equality, this would work just fine. What to do?

cursèd nominal typing

I said before that Wasm doesn’t have nominal types. That was true in the past, but no more! The nominal typing proposal was incorporated in the standard last July. Its vocabulary is a bit odd, though. You have to define your data types with the tag keyword:

(tag $v (param $secret i32))

Syntactically, these data types are a bit odd: you have to declare fields using param instead of field and you don’t have to wrap the fields in struct.

They also omit some features relative to isorecursive structs, namely subtyping and mutability. However, sometimes subtyping is not necessary, and one can always assignment-convert mutable fields, wrapping them in mutable structs as needed.

To construct a nominally-typed value, the mechanics are somewhat involved; instead of (struct.new $t (i32.const 42)), you use throw:

(block $b (result (ref exn))
 (try_table
  (catch_all_ref $b)
  (throw $v (i32.const 42)))
 (unreachable))

Of course, as this is a new proposal, we don’t yet have precise type information on the Wasm side; the new instance instead is returned as the top type for nominally-typed values, exn.

To check if a value is a $v, you need to write a bit of code:

(func $is-v? (param $x (ref exn)) (result i32)
  (block $yep (result (ref exn))
   (block $nope
    (try_table
     (catch_ref $v $yep)
     (catch_all $nope)
     (throw_ref (local.get $x))))
   (return (i32.const 0)))
  (return (i32.const 1)))

Finally, field access is a bit odd; unlike structs which have struct.get, nominal types receive all their values via a catch handler.

(func $v-fields (param $x (ref exn)) (result i32)
  (try_table
   (catch $v 0)
   (throw_ref (local.get $x)))
  (unreachable))

Here, the 0 in the (catch $v 0) refers to the function call itself: all fields of $v get returned from the function call. In this case there’s only one, othewise a get-fields function would return multiple values. Happily, this accessor preserves type safety: if $x is not actually $v, an exception will be thrown.

Now, sometimes you want to be quite strict about your nominal type identities; in that case, just define your tag in a module and don’t export it. But if you want to enable composition in a principled way, not just subject to the randomness of whether another module happens to implement a type structurally the same as your own, the nominal typing proposal also gives a preview of type imports. The facility is direct: you simply export your tag from your module, and allow other modules to import it. Everything will work as expected!

fin

Friends, as I am sure is abundantly clear, this is a troll post :) It’s not wrong, though! All of the facilities for nominally-typed structs without subtyping or field mutability are present in the exception-handling proposal.

The context for this work was that I was updating Hoot to use the newer version of Wasm exception handling, instead of the pre-standardization version. It was a nice change, but as it introduces the exnref type, it does open the door to some funny shenanigans, and I find it hilarious that the committee has been hemming and hawwing about type imports for 7 years and then goes and ships it in this backward kind of way.

Next up, exception support in Wastrel, as soon as I can figure out where to allocate type tags for this new nominal typing facility. Onwards and upwards!