Linq mutator proposal

I’m thinking about a cool new mutator for C#. There are a lot of LinQ methods that return the same interface, this makes them suitable for removing and switching. For example:

var query = someList.Where(x => x.Name == "Stryker").Distinct();
var query = someList.Where(x => x.Name == "Stryker"); // mutated

And

var query = someList.Where(x => x.Name == "Stryker").Reverse();
var query = someList.Where(x => x.Name == "Stryker"); // mutated

And

var query = someList.Where(x => x.Name == "Stryker").SingleOrDefault();
var query = someList.Where(x => x.Name == "Stryker").FirstOrDefault(); // mutated

What do you guys thinks about a mutator like this? Would this be useful, and if so, what kind of mutations should we make?

[richardwerkman]

So to further refine the issue, I suggest the following mutations:

Original	Mutated
Distinct()
Reverse()
OrderBy()
OrderByDescending()
SingleOrDefault()	FirstOrDefault()
FirstOrDefault()	SingleOrDefault()
First()	Last()
Last()	First()
All()	Any()
Any()	All()
Skip()	Take()
Take()	Skip()
SkipWhile()	TakeWhile()
TakeWhile()	SkipWhile()
Min()	Max()
Max()	Min()
Sum()	Count()
Count()	Sum()

[richardwerkman]

@Michielpeeters No the mutations are not specific for Linq statements with Where, that was just an example query. I’m not mutating Where in the Linq mutator with reason because the expression in the Where() will already be mutated by Stryker. An example on how this mutator will work is:

var query = someList.Distinct().OrderBy(x => x.Age);

would be mutated into

var query = someList.OrderBy(x => x.Age);

and

var query = someList.Distinct();

When you are sure your tests are correct and still no test fails when removing .Distinct() for example, maybe the .Distinct() can be safely removed from your codebase. That way the mutation was still useful.