On Thu Oct 5 14:17:41 2023 +0000, Giovanni Mascellani wrote:
There are probably a few other things we'd like to test:
- falling through, together with its correct side effects;
- `break` working properly;
- `break` and `continue` doing the right thing for a `switch` inside a `for`;
- check that non-constant cases are rejected;
- check that cases which require constant folding work properly (i.e.,
`case 1+1:`);
- check that duplicate cases are rejected;
- maybe even checking a `switch` without a `default`.
On top of that, it would be nice to have the tests introduced at the beginning as `todo` and then solved as needed.
Yes, it all makes sense, except for loops. I don't think it belongs here. It would be a test for loops.