RE: [abc] RE: Proof-reading OOPSLA paper

Great, Elnar, this is hugely helpful.

>
> page 10: ...with a before/after annotationn... an extra n in the
> annotation
> word

done

>
> page 11: and then an method exit: a method exit

done

>
> page 11: ...calls to the locking method need be intercepted.: I would add
> 'to' to the sentence so it is 'calls ... need to be intercepted'

done

Pavel to do these:

> page 12: ...to any attempt at implementing them.: suggest changing to 'to
> any attempt to implement them'
>
> page 13: several i.e. lack italics.
>
> page 13: ...and don't contribute...: 'do not contribute' seems better
>
> page 13: section 3 with a non-capital letter
>
> page 13: ...this is challenge 2 (Partial Matches) that we identified
> earlier.: this is THE challenge 2...
>
> page 13: abc takes the (as far as we're aware) unique approach of
> specialising to the declared tracematch variables [2].: I would change it
> to
> : abc takes the unique approach (as far as we are aware) of specialising
> to
> the declared tracematch variables [2].
>
> page 13: ...as a set of Disjuncts.: why does the word disjuncts sometimes
> start with a capital letter and sometimes not? Is it because you have a
> class with the same name? It is not immediately obvious. in different
> places
> disjunct has different formatting as well...
>
> page 13: and the state on which it appears: I think it should be 'and the
> state in which it appears'
>
> page 13: how much of that trace we have already seen and what we should
> expect next.: consider rephrasing this sentence, at least to: 'how much of
> that trace we have already seen and what should be expected next.
>
> page 13: The reason for our choice of DNF for representing constraints is
> simplicity: suggest to change it to something like: 'The reason we choose
> DNF for representing constraints is simplicity'
>
> page 13: idividual -> individual
>
> page 13: The alternative is to have some generic way of representing
> bindings....: this is a very long sentence. I think it would be better to
> make it simpler by splitting it into several sentences.
>
> page 13: In the same sentence PatialMatch class is italic, but Object
> class
> is not. why?
>
> page 13: later on PartialMatch is not italic anymore. is there any
> consistency?
>
> page 13: some small measure: may be better to say: 'a small measure'
>
> page 13: several e.g. lack italics
>
> page 13: a minimum of runtime tests are necessary -> a minimum number of
> runtime tests is necessary.
>
> page 13: NFA, push-down automaton or alternating automaton, etc.: I
> suggest
> to remove 'or' if there is 'etc'
>
> page 13: in the same way that -> in the same way as
>
> page 14: e.g. lacks italics
>
> page 14: section 4 -> Section 4
>
> page 15: section 4 -> Section 4
>
> page 15: aren't -> are not
>
> page 15: i.e. lacks italics
>
> page 15: that will benefit all transitions, if possible.. : two full-stops
> at the end of the sentence
>
> page 15: This takes into account all tracematch symbols because all states
> that that may be: remove one extra 'that'
>
> page 16: section 4 -> Section 4
>
> page 16-17, entire paper: sometimes the formatting of variable names is
> different from the rest of the text and sometimes not. Same applies to the
> names of classes
>
> page 17: i.e. lacks italics

(end of Pavel's changes)
--------------------------------------
>
> page 17, entire paper: just concerned about the consistency: sometimes you
> write using British English, e.g. optimisation, and sometimes you write
> using US English, e.g. optimization or we will...

optimise! optimisation! when will these Canadians learn how to spell?!
I grepped for iz and changed all the sizes to sises :-)

> page 17: ...because this symbol either every path leading to a final state
> goes through...: probably there is a missing 'for' -> because for this
> symbol either....

right, done

> page 17: I think there should be a comma after For example.

done

> page 17: sometimes dataflow, sometimes data flow

made it dataflow everywhere.

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Majordomo list server
> > [mailto:majordomo@comlab.ox.ac.uk] On Behalf Of Oege de Moor
> > Sent: 17 March 2006 08:48
> > To: abc@comlab.ox.ac.uk
> > Subject: RE: [abc] RE: Proof-reading OOPSLA paper
> >
> > Hi Elnar,
> >
> > Thanks for these very helpful comments!
> >
> > I've implemented them as indicated below. Eagerly awaiting
> > the next instalment of your feedback...
> >
> > >
> > > I have started reading the paper till Section 5. It looks
> > pretty good
> > > so far, very comprehensible, great examples, impressive numbers. I
> > > especially like the offensive comments on PQL... :) Below
> > are few minor suggestions.
> > > I'll read the rest of the paper tomorrow morning and email
> > my further
> > > suggestions ASAP.
> >
> > thanks
> >
> > >
> > > you say abc-an extensible compiler for aspectj both in abstract and
> > > introduction. seems a bit redundant to me.
> >
> > I think that's ok.
> >
> > > page 2: we collect and develop of a set of...: I guess the
> > first 'of'
> > > is a bit unfortunate there...
> >
> > corrected
> >
> > > page 4: the way the patterns are specified in J-LO: I think 'the'
> > > should not really be there
> >
> > corrected
> >
> > >
> > > page 4: AspectJ only allows one to intercept one event at a
> > time...:
> > > the first 'one' seem to be redundant here
> >
> > corrected
> >
> > >
> > > page 4: you say: a simple aspect might keep a couple of
> > identity hash
> > > maps:
> > > and then it turns out that it is actually three. Probably using the
> > > word several is better than a couple
> >
> > corrected
> >
> > >
> > > page 4: It also possible, however, to use aspects to do
> > exactly what a
> > > good programmer would do by hand: 'is' is missing at the
> > beginning of
> > > this sentence
> >
> > corrected
> >
> > >
> > > page 4: As said, it is useful to have this type of non-trivial
> > > implementation as a 'gold standard' in our benchmarks: I
> > think it is
> > > better to start this sentence with 'As we said'
> >
> > corrected
> >
> > >
> > > sometimes you write 'section X' with a capital letter and sometimes
> > > not
> >
> > all such references (similarly for figures and tables) should
> > be capital
> >
> > > page 4: Not all systems provide for free variables to be
> > bound in the
> > > matching process: i suggest to rephrase this sentence
> >
> > changed to:
> >
> > In some systems, one can bind free variables via the pattern
> > matching process. When available, this feature greatly
> > simplifies writing patterns that track the behaviour of
> > individual object instances. It is very hard to implement
> > such variable binding efficiently, however.
> >
> > > page 5: ...but it is also hard to implement efficiently.: does not
> > > sound well
> >
> > see new para above
> >
> > > page 5: ...which indicated that its performance ranks well
> > below those
> > > of the systems we benchmark here...I think it is better to
> > remove the
> > > word 'well' because at the first look it gives a rather positive
> > > feeling about HAWK
> >
> > well := considerably
> >
> > >
> > > Page 6: The performance number listed was obtained by using a heap
> > > size of
> > > 1.5G: Is it just one number or numbers? what is 1.5G?
> >
> > clarified: "listed for {\sc AjNaive} was in fact obtained"
> >
> > >
> > > page 7: These highlight the importance of...: the
> > importance of what?
> > > challenge N5?
> >
> > clarified: "These highlight the importance of the next challenge: "
> >
> > >
> > > page 9: Binding threads is impossible in PQL at the current time: I
> > > think it would be better just to say: Binding threads is currently
> > > impossible in PQL.
> >
> > corrected
> >
> > >
> > > page 9: strat-egy: is it a correct division of the word?
> >
> > erm, just living with TeX's word breaking. I don't understand
> > the rules!
> > >
> > > page 9: .and it cannot be expressed in PQL for the same reasons as
> > > that
> > > example: for the same reasons as IN that example
> >
> > corrected
> >
> >
> > >
> > > page 9: i suggest to use * for the cases where the example is
> > > expressible, but has bugs and - for the cases where the
> > example is not
> > > expressible. it seems more logical to me
> >
> > I disagree: "*" is unfortunate but honourable, "-" is shameful ;-)
> >
> > >
> > > page 9: On the NullTrack benchmark, using an appropriate data
> > > structure for organising the set of partial matches yields to a
> > > speedup of a factor of
> > > 6.:
> > > it is not clear what yields what?
> >
> > deleted erroneous "to"
> >
> > > Section 4: for example, Weka is written using three
> > different fonts.
> > > is it justified? Same applies to APPROVE
> >
> > all should be \sc, corrected in this section.
> >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Pavel Avgustinov
> > > > [mailto:pavel.avgustinov@magdalen.oxford.ac.uk]
> > > > Sent: 16 March 2006 20:10
> > > > To: aske@brics.dk; elnar.hajiyev@comlab.ox.ac.uk;
> > dsereni@gmail.com
> > > > Cc: abc@comlab.ox.ac.uk
> > > > Subject: Proof-reading OOPSLA paper
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > As you no doubt know, we have been working on an oopsla
> > submission
> > > > about trace monitoring features. The deadline is tomorrow, and we
> > > > think we finally have a coherent enough draft to request 'outside
> > > > eyes' to have a look.
> > > >
> > > > I have put a current (at the time of writing) version at
> > > > http://musketeer.comlab.ox.ac.uk/~pavel/paper.pdf -- it is almost
> > > > complete, but still misses a conclusions section, and some of the
> > > > related/future work is not expanded.
> > > >
> > > > It would be great if you had the time to read through and
> > point out
> > > > any typos, inconsistencies, unnecessary repetitions or
> > > > underexplained concepts that you can see. Of course, any sort of
> > > > comment is helpful -- preferably in an email to abc@comlab.
> > > >
> > > > As I said, the deadline is very close, so we need any comments as
> > > > soon as possible, tonight or tomorrow morning at the latest.
> > > >
> > > > To avoid biasing your judgement, I shall say no more. :-)
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > > - P
> > > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Fri Mar 17 14:48:58 2006