Dan Kubb

> > I think so. I does require more syntax to enable non-greedy matching. > > I think we should focus on the semantics, not the syntax to apply the...

Thinking about this even further, if we consider a regexp to be a _representation_ of a (possibly infinite) set of all possible strings that a regexp could match, then it...

I dislike refinements because it encourages monkey patching. Localizing the effects does not make it a good idea.

Could another term for this be an "inverse function"?

I think a clear set of terms to describe the different classifications would benefit mutation testing since all authors have a common vocabulary in which to share ideas. Right now...

When reporting a mutation failure would it help to say what kind of mutation it was that failed? That would allow people to form the mental links between the classification...

This will also put some positive pressure on us to form a taxonomy of well-named mutation operators. I noticed when using tools like reek, when I see a method has...

I also like how reek has documentation on what each smell looks like along with possible fixes in some situations, eg: https://github.com/troessner/reek/tree/master/docs

> I tend to step back and look at it from a language-agnostic viewpoint and say what would a mutation testing tool for the the next great language require One...

> So providing a label or tag to each alive mutant would help with this, much like reek's `UncommunicativeName` tags allow me to scan the logs an see where these...