Which format is relevant?

[Turhan Ali]

When I check the examples, the simple add function looks like below:

(module
  (func $add (param $lhs i32) (param $rhs i32) (result i32)
    get_local $lhs
    get_local $rhs
    i32.add)
  (export "add" (func $add))
)

But other examples use the format below:

(module
  (func $add (param $lhs i32) (param $rhs i32) (result i32)
    (i32.add
      (get_local $lhs)
      (get_local $rhs))
  (export "add" (func $add))
)

For instance: https://cdn.rawgit.com/WebAssembly/sexpr-wasm-prototype/2bb13aa785be9908b95d0e2e09950b39a26004fa/demo/index.html

[Luke Wagner]

Both are valid syntax, the latter uses the Folded Instructions syntactic sugar. But maybe your point is that perhaps we should regularly use the sugar or not?

[Turhan Ali]

In fact, that was a question, and I got my answer. Thank you.

I didn't know it was also a valid syntax. The link I shared does not accept the syntactic sugar. That is why I got confused and thought that format with folded instruction might be deprecated.

[Luke Wagner]

Ah great. Yes, I think sexpr-wasm-prototype is pretty out of date. I'd use wabt or binaryen instead.