From 930026ee2139512859a44ef8f65d2d0a3e54a62b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mart Lubbers Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2016 21:49:40 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] update --- shorts/redblack.tex | 7 +++++-- 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) diff --git a/shorts/redblack.tex b/shorts/redblack.tex index b767fd8..0cb68f2 100644 --- a/shorts/redblack.tex +++ b/shorts/redblack.tex @@ -15,9 +15,11 @@ way. This is possible because of properties of functional languages. \subsubsection*{Strengths \& Weaknesses} %Strength (what positive basis is there for publishing/reading it?) -The paper is clear and straight to the point +The paper is clear and straight to the point. It takes the reader by the hand. %Weaknesses +On the other side the paper is very brief and could be considered shallow +because of the lack of contents. \subsubsection*{Evaluation} %Evaluation (if you were running the conference/journal where it was published, @@ -33,6 +35,7 @@ The paper is very short and quite some popular language is used. \subsubsection*{Discussion} %Queries for discussion \begin{itemize} - \item + \item Is the paper too shallow? + \item Should benchmarks be added? \end{itemize} \end{document} -- 2.20.1