Marc

That's what I expected. @drvinceknight any thoughts? Maybe we could have some kind of wrapper / transformer that makes any player generically evolvable in a trivial way for cases like...

> I like your suggestion @marcharper, a wrapper that allows player to evolve in a trivial sounds good. Would another approach be to add an evolve method to the base...

Post #1288 I'm thinking that it's better to make all Players evolvable, if only to remove multiple inheritance from the Player classes hierarchy. I'm not sure we actually gain much...

See also #1320

However is fine with me as long as it's obvious that we maintain a fully tested library. It's important, a lot of effort, and it sets us far apart from...

This is the (failing) test: ``` def test_reproducibility_of_play(self): player = self.player() player_clone = player.clone() coplayer = axl.Random(0.5) coplayer_clone = coplayer.clone() m1 = axl.Match((player, coplayer), turns=10, seed=10) m2 = axl.Match((player_clone, coplayer_clone),...

There are already [some tests](https://github.com/Axelrod-Python/Axelrod/blob/dev/axelrod/tests/strategies/test_player.py#L467) in `TestPlayer` that do exactly as described above, e.g. tests that a clone and the original produce the same play against a small set of...

@souravsingh Great! It's a huge undertaking so feel free to tackle it in chunks, maybe file by file, and open multiple PRs if you'd like. And don't feel any pressure...

@meatballs @drvinceknight Have you seen [PEP 526](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0526/)? It's Python 3.6 only and relevant to this issue. Unfortunately Python 3.7 won't be released for 18 months...

@drvinceknight we should look into running a type checker (with travis?) once we have a some annotations in.