Daniel Spiewak

This would also be fantastic for Scala developers using Scalaz/Cats. At present, these operators render in a rather unsightly fashion: 

Neat! Is there any reason you're pimping the methods onto `Zipper`, rather than just adding them directly to the class?

`Zipper` is certainly a little bloated, but adding members via implicit conversion doesn't fix that, it only hides the bloat in another file. In other words, it's only fixing the...

If we can break up `Zipper` into inter-dependent traits, I think that would be ideal. Otherwise, let's plan to put the axes onto `Zipper` and try to factor things out...

> There is no support for the child axes (although it is possible) as this can be achieved via simple selection. I would vote for some syntactic sugar which wraps...

> What can be done to avoid some confusion, is to add an `unselectAll` method on `Zipper` that recursively unselects up to the root. This way users won't have to...

> Of course, the two concepts cannot be separated as you have to perform at least one selection to enable axes. Maybe we should have a no-op selector on `Group`...

Yeah, I think we should just stick with axes on `Zipper`, as you suggest.

Hmm, thinking about it, I really have no objection to a `PathFunction` style interface, so long as the direct `\` selection is still supported. There are absolutely cases where composing...

> Do you suggest using `PathFunction` instead of axes or in addition to it? I think in addition, as long as it doesn't create code duplication. I think they're useful...