%&pre
\title{Theorems for free!}
\date{2016{-}04{-}20}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
Wadler suggests that by looking at parameterized functions you can say things
about a particular concrete function of that type. The paper also updates the
proof for the abstraction theorem.

%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
The first claim is strengthened by showing a long list of example theorems
extracted from just the parameterized type. Wadler shows that there is often
only one function that truly matches the type and Wadler shows several useful
properties that you can derive from the parametric definition. For the second
subject of the paper a full proof is provided.

\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
The paper is clear and also introduces the basic theory before elaborating on
the new concepts. This makes it a easy read. The examples are illustrative and
strengthen the proposition.

%Weaknesses
A possible weakness is the abundance of algebra and formulas. While this is
very necessary it can be good to express some of the formalisations in natural
language before coining the formula.

\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
%would you recommend acceptance?)
%Comments on quality of writing
The paper is succinct, concise and ordered. The goal of the publication is to
show the usefulness of theorems that follow from the parameterized function
definition which it reaches successfully. The paper is well embedded in
existing literature.

\subsubsection*{Discussion}
%Queries for discussion
\begin{itemize}
	\item The updated abstraction theorem proof seems a little out of tune and
		could it be a different publication? This concerns Section~6 mostly
	\item 
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
