repositories
/
rsss1516.git
/ commitdiff
commit
grep
author
committer
pickaxe
?
search:
re
summary
|
shortlog
|
log
|
commit
| commitdiff |
tree
raw
|
patch
|
inline
| side by side (parent:
8195b78
)
batchers
author
Mart Lubbers
<mart@martlubbers.net>
Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:57:43 +0000
(11:57 +0200)
committer
Mart Lubbers
<mart@martlubbers.net>
Wed, 1 Jun 2016 09:57:43 +0000
(11:57 +0200)
shorts2/batchers.tex
patch
|
blob
|
history
diff --git
a/shorts2/batchers.tex
b/shorts2/batchers.tex
index
3b70a96
..
cb416ed
100644
(file)
--- a/
shorts2/batchers.tex
+++ b/
shorts2/batchers.tex
@@
-1,6
+1,6
@@
\documentclass{article}
\documentclass{article}
-\usepackage
{a4wide} % For better page usage
+\usepackage
[a4paper]{geometry}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{%
\usepackage{hyperref}
\hypersetup{%
@@
-19,26
+19,46
@@
\maketitle
\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
\maketitle
\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
+This \emph{Functional Pearl} shows that using tools from functional programming
+the underlying semantics and meaning of the classic \emph{Batcher's Merging
+Network} can be revealed very easily without the use of ample indexing.
%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
+Step by step the author guides the reader through theory to finally reach the
+real implementation of the peculiar sorting network. When the final
+implementation is presented properties can be proven very easily.
\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
+The final implementation is very elegant and short. The reader is prepared very
+thoroughly before it reaches the real implementation. Moreover the pearl is
+just about the right size for one. The number of pages is a bit more then usual
+but there are a lot of diagrams that stretch the pagenumber.
%Weaknesses
%Weaknesses
+However it heavily depends on so called \emph{clean} functions which are not
+very trivial at first. Also the author takes a lot of detours to get to the
+solution. While some of the detours are necessary a lot of them could be
+formulated somewhat shorter to not confuse the reader.
\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
%would you recommend acceptance?)
\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
%would you recommend acceptance?)
+I would accept the paper under the condition that the author takes a good look
+at the detours and then decides whether they can be formulated more succinct or
+maybe even omitted.
%Comments on quality of writing
%Comments on quality of writing
+The quality of writing is very good. The paper is well structured besides the
+detours. There are a lot of fancy operators used which makes the code not
+usable without a small modification.
\subsubsection*{Discussion}
%Queries for discussion
\begin{itemize}
\subsubsection*{Discussion}
%Queries for discussion
\begin{itemize}
- \item
- \item
- \item
+ \item
There are too many detours in the paper.
+ \item
The pearl is not really a general solution but a specific one for a
+ specific problem.
\end{itemize}
\end{document}
\end{itemize}
\end{document}