Théo FIDRY

sorry I meant code coverage generator... Guess I was too tired :D

Good idea, done

>But that's kind of gross, am I supposed to store a copy of every constant in my tests? I wonder about that. There is definitely some cases where your code...

~~I can't have a deep look at it atm but I feel it would be easier if we leverage a PHP config as an extension point like for example done...

>I'm thinking about adding another object to the callback, named, say, Result, to make it callable(Mutant, Result) to make the filtering API more explicit if we'd want to not just...

I don't really know what to think of it yet. Do you have a few examples to illustrate? Although I'm all for adding new mutants, we need to keep in...

Looking into it

@sanmai you can now more easily profile it with the `Tracing` scenario added in #1178. I think if reverting to public properties adds a +10% boost on it, I'm ok...

@Ocramius if `BarTest` does not exists then `Bar` is not covered in which case it could be skipped with `--only-covered`. The PHPUnit annotation is only for forcing the end-user to...

Oh you mean skipping the executing of the tests that don't have coverage information in the initial test run?