From ba7246cf4cd21f94ceb858fed22062d3fb65d115 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Mart Lubbers Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 10:07:50 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] data types done --- shorts1/data_types.tex | 15 +++++++++++++-- 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) 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} -- 2.20.1