From 0a0c22f3c18f09dfbe447541157bf501a8913cfb Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Mart Lubbers <mart@martlubbers.net>
Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:09:00 +0100
Subject: [PATCH] update, data types halfway

---
 shorts1/data_types.tex | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
 shorts1/yesterday.tex  |  9 ++++++++-
 2 files changed, 40 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)

diff --git a/shorts1/data_types.tex b/shorts1/data_types.tex
index 7c1b3c5..90aa3dc 100644
--- a/shorts1/data_types.tex
+++ b/shorts1/data_types.tex
@@ -1,16 +1,45 @@
 %&pre
 \title{Data types \`a la carte}
-\date{2016-03-16}
+\date{2016{--}03{-}16}
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
-%Clearly separated sections covering
-
+\subsubsection*{Summary \& Evidence}
 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
+The paper provides a method of data types, functions and monads of a restricted
+kind to create more flexible representations. It shows that by using
+co-products and type constraint type-constructors one can combine individual
+parts and using this technology one can create less monolithic monads that
+better reveal the functionality and purpose.
+
 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
+Usefulness and proofs are given by tackling several classical problems in pure
+functional languages such as the expression problem, input/output and the
+problem of a having a global state. In these problems the function signatures
+are different compared to the classical monadic approach. The function
+signature reveals more about the semantics and thus gives more clarity about
+the function. 
+
+\subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses}
 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
+As many other papers within this field of research the power of the introduced
+techniques is shown by tackling classical problems. Researchers from the field
+are likely to be already familiar with said problems. In that way immediately
+the practicality of the techniques become clear.
+
 %Weaknesses
+In contrast the paper is very complex and introduces a lot of new abstractions
+notations and functions which makes the paper a tough read if you are not
+already deep in the materials. A lot of abbreviations are used which are not
+properly explained that could lead to confusion and the obligation to reread
+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?)
+
 %Comments on quality of writing
+
+\subsubsection*{Discussion}
 %Queries for discussion
+
 \end{document}
diff --git a/shorts1/yesterday.tex b/shorts1/yesterday.tex
index c85b6ac..114a2c0 100644
--- a/shorts1/yesterday.tex
+++ b/shorts1/yesterday.tex
@@ -1,16 +1,23 @@
 %&pre
 \title{Yesterday, my program worked. Today, it does not. Why?}
-\date{2016-03-16}
+\date{2016{--}03{-}16}
 \begin{document}
 \maketitle
 %Clearly separated sections covering
 
+\paragraph{Summary \& Evidence}
 %Summary (as briefly as you can - two or three sentences)
 %Evidence (what evidence is offered to support the claims?)
+
+\paragraph{Strength \& Weaknesses}
 %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?)
 %Weaknesses
+
+\paragraph{Evaluation}
 %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published,
 %would you recommend acceptance?)
 %Comments on quality of writing
+
+\paragraph{Discussion}
 %Queries for discussion
 \end{document}
-- 
2.20.1