From a462c8f0da0b205a1d779b23f9abbba405a5c765 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mart Lubbers Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2016 21:18:10 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] update short reviews for next week --- shorts/Makefile | 2 +- shorts/quickcheck.tex | 35 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ shorts/theorems.tex | 46 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) create mode 100644 shorts/quickcheck.tex create mode 100644 shorts/theorems.tex diff --git a/shorts/Makefile b/shorts/Makefile index af0284f..d507164 100644 --- 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 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 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} -- 2.20.1