batchers

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}
 
-\usepackage{a4wide}    % For better page usage
+\usepackage[a4paper]{geometry}
 \usepackage{hyperref}
 
 \hypersetup{%
@@ -19,26 +19,46 @@
 \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?)
+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?)
+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
+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?)
+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
+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}
-       \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}