You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
In the mutation experiments I've been doing, it's common for mutants to be grouped into multiple invocations of a named mutant operator. Right now, mutants are always just raw IDs that are indices into the compilers' mutation table, but things would be a little easier on the data analysis style if we could assign systematic mutant names over those IDs.
A nice approach would be to assign an operator name to ranges, like so:
This would then systematically name mutant 50 as FA1, mutant 51 as FA2, and so on to FA49 in all user-facing output (though 50, 51, etc would still be passed to the compiler).
This would necessitate a change to the Mutant type, either to be an index into a table, or to be something like
typeMutantstruct {
NamestringIDint
}
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
In the mutation experiments I've been doing, it's common for mutants to be grouped into multiple invocations of a named mutant operator. Right now, mutants are always just raw IDs that are indices into the compilers' mutation table, but things would be a little easier on the data analysis style if we could assign systematic mutant names over those IDs.
A nice approach would be to assign an operator name to ranges, like so:
This would then systematically name mutant 50 as
FA1
, mutant 51 asFA2
, and so on toFA49
in all user-facing output (though50
,51
, etc would still be passed to the compiler).This would necessitate a change to the
Mutant
type, either to be an index into a table, or to be something likeThe text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: