Cyrille DUPUYDAUBY

yes, but that may be painful to roll back when necessary. I was thinking about this ```csharp public static decimal CalculateValue(bool a, decimal b, decimal c) { decimal result; if...

We always need rollback, just in case: some syntax form may raise problems we did not anticipate, or a newer C# may offer some conflicting new syntax. here, we would...

Hi @dogac00, this is not really a bug, more like a limitation of what can be achieved with the overall architecture of Stryker, let me explain: - Stryker generates a...

It turns out this by design; see issue #664 for reference : Stryker deliberately injects both a logical AND an (bitwise) arithmetic mutation, knowing one of them will be removed....

In order to keep the mutator code base simple andStryker fast, the mutation philosophy is: 1) work with the syntax tree and not the semantic model; the semantic model is...

Thanks for your analysis. This confirms that Stryker is not able to support Razor projects without significant effort. As of now, Stryker must directly handle project build tasks as we...

I think the easiest way to do this would be simply to build multiple assemblies. I dont think switching variable names would work. Consider this ```csharp const int a =...

Just for the sake of the argument, on the opportunity for being silly: > > switching would mean something like > > > > ```const int a = 0;``` >...

I am afraid this is harder than it looks at first glance. You are dealing with the halting problem. E.G: there may be conditional exits `if (...) break;` somewhere in...

Makes sense. To be honest, I am still dubious about the interest of mutating the incrementor part of the _for_ statement, mostly because we already mutate the condition part.