Tanton Gibbs wrote: > We also might want some way of specifying a test that will cause an > error...for example > 0b19 ERROR > > I'm not exactly sure how to specify this, but it is often important to > document what is not allowed along with what is allowed.
I definitely agree that we need some error tests: I agree with your "ERROR" indicator as the trigger: but I need an example of what the output of the code-generator should look like. After that: yes, we should add a whole load of negative tests. I think that it'd also be nice to get some consensus on which format of test we should maintain: the table version, or the raw-code version. Dave.
