From: Mart Lubbers <mart@martlubbers.net>
Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 09:07:50 +0000 (+0100)
Subject: data types done
X-Git-Tag: first_presentation~7
X-Git-Url: https://git.martlubbers.net/?a=commitdiff_plain;h=ba7246cf4cd21f94ceb858fed22062d3fb65d115;p=rsss1516.git

data types done
---

diff --git a/shorts1/data_types.tex b/shorts1/data_types.tex
index fa8edb3..73b30d9 100644
--- a/shorts1/data_types.tex
+++ b/shorts1/data_types.tex
@@ -36,11 +36,22 @@ the parts several times to figure out the meaning.
 \subsubsection*{Evaluation}
 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
 %would you recommend acceptance?)
-The paper
+The paper would be a good addition to very specific functional programming
+conferences or journal. I would not advise to publish this in a general
+theoretical computer science journal because of the weaknesses described above.
 
 %Comments on quality of writing
+Concerning quality of writing; it requires quite some background knowledge to
+read the paper but the author managed to have a good build-up to the
+technicalities. Moreover, it is embedded well in the literature.
 
 \subsubsection*{Discussion}
 %Queries for discussion
-
+\begin{itemize}
+	\item Why is the representation really a saviour for the monolithic IO
+		monad. The regular approach does not have that much overhead.
+	\item Since free monads are not widespread and mostly only known in
+		category theory. Do we really have a useful application? Are the monads
+		who really need such a restructuring unsuitable for it?
+\end{itemize}
 \end{document}