update short reviews for next week

diff --git a/shorts/Makefile b/shorts/Makefile
index af0284f..d507164 100644 (file)
--- a/shorts/Makefile
+++ b/shorts/Makefile
@@ -1,5 +1,5 @@
 LATEX:=pdflatex
-DOCUMENTS:=yesterday data_types why_functional
+DOCUMENTS:=yesterday data_types why_functional theorems quickcheck
 
 .SECONDARY: pre.fmt
 

diff --git a/shorts/quickcheck.tex b/shorts/quickcheck.tex
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..9c26650
--- /dev/null
+++ b/shorts/quickcheck.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,35 @@
+%&pre
+\title{QuickCheck: A Lightweight Tool for Random Testing of Haskell Programs}
+\date{2016{-}04{-}13}
+\begin{document}
+\maketitle
+\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
+%Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
+Claessen and Hughes intruduce an automatic test tool for \emph{Haskell} that
+can test if functions adhere to certain properties. Quickcheck is lightweight
+and applies random testing. The properties are functions themselves.
+
+%Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
+Evidence for the claim is shown by examples and by explaining the usage of the
+library. Elements such as parametricity, testcase generators, handling infinite
+lists, object size bounds and function generation. Furthermore the case is
+strengthed by some case studies.
+
+\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
+%Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
+The paper is extremely easy and well written
+
+%Weaknesses
+
+\subsubsection*{Evaluation}
+%Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
+%would you recommend acceptance?)
+
+%Comments on quality of writing
+
+\subsubsection*{Discussion}
+%Queries for discussion
+\begin{itemize}
+       \item
+\end{itemize}
+\end{document}

diff --git a/shorts/theorems.tex b/shorts/theorems.tex
new file mode 100644 (file)
index 0000000..56d53bd
--- /dev/null
+++ b/shorts/theorems.tex
@@ -0,0 +1,46 @@
+%&pre
+\title{Theorems for free!}
+\date{2016{-}04{-}13}
+\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}