Here my changes to 'techniques' in response to your comments:
>page 13: several i.e. lack italics.
>
>
Fixed quite a few of those.
>page 13: ...and don't contribute...: 'do not contribute' seems better
>
>
Corrected.
>page 13: section 3 with a non-capital letter
>
>
Corrected quite a few of those.
>page 13: ...this is challenge 2 (Partial Matches) that we identified
>earlier.: this is THE challenge 2...
>
>
Disagree; capitalised Challenge to make it clearer ("this is Challenge
2", similar to "cf. Section 2" rather than "the Section 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].
>
>
Corrected.
>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...
>
>
I have gone through correcting these issues where I could see them.
There should now only be two different spellings -- lower-case
'disjunct' and upper-case code-fragment Disjunct, referring to the class.
>page 13: and the state on which it appears: I think it should be 'and the
>state in which it appears'
>
>
Disagree; constraints are labels *on* states, and so disjuncts stored in
constraints appear *on* states, not *in* states. I'm happy to be
corrected, of course.
>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.
>
>
Rephrased to "... what portion of a matching trace has been observed
already, and what events 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'
>
>
Changed to 'We chose to represent constraints in DNF for simplicity'.
>page 13: idividual -> individual
>
>
Corrected.
>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.
>
>
Split off the J-LO remark. Sentence now reads:
"The alternative is to have some generic way of representing bindings
--- for example, some mapping from partial matches to bound variables,
or a generic PartialMatchclass that uses, say, Object arrays or similar
to store the bindings. However, our experiments with J-LO indicate that
a substantial part of its overhead is induced by the fact that a generic
partial match representation is used."
>page 13: In the same sentence PatialMatch class is italic, but Object class
>is not. why?
>
>
Inconsistency -- corrected.
>page 13: later on PartialMatch is not italic anymore. is there any
>consistency?
>
>
No. Well, hopefully there is now. :-) Changed this occurrence of
PartialMatch to "the partial match representation".
>page 13: some small measure: may be better to say: 'a small measure'
>
>
OK.
>page 13: several e.g. lack italics
>
>
Corrected.
>page 13: a minimum of runtime tests are necessary -> a minimum number of
>runtime tests is necessary.
>
>
OK. I still prefer the original version.
>page 13: NFA, push-down automaton or alternating automaton, etc.: I suggest
>to remove 'or' if there is 'etc'
>
>
OK -- also used 'automata' throughout.
>page 13: in the same way that -> in the same way as
>
>
OK.
>page 14: e.g. lacks italics
>
>
>page 14: section 4 -> Section 4
>
>page 15: section 4 -> Section 4
>
>
All of those corrected.
>page 15: aren't -> are not
>
>
Corrected.
>page 15: i.e. lacks italics
>
>
Corrected.
>page 15: that will benefit all transitions, if possible.. : two full-stops
>at the end of the sentence
>
>
Corrected.
>page 15: This takes into account all tracematch symbols because all states
>that that may be: remove one extra 'that'
>
>
OK.
>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
>
>
Changed all \lstinline{} in techniques to \emph{}.
>page 17: i.e. lacks italics
>
>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...
>
>
We have Canadian co-authors. ;-) The last pass over any paper is usually
the elimination of optimizations, analyzing compilers and similar
realizations.
Received on Fri Mar 17 14:50:32 2006
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Tue Mar 06 2007 - 16:13:27 GMT