Switched to ACM TOMS template + stylistic adjustements - #14
Open
vincent-maillou wants to merge 4 commits into
Open
Switched to ACM TOMS template + stylistic adjustements#14vincent-maillou wants to merge 4 commits into
vincent-maillou wants to merge 4 commits into
Conversation
Global: - CCS concepts (http://dl.acm.org/ccs.cfm) and Keywords need to be decided for the submission. - no emails for authors, should I add them? - should we add ORCID? Some changes related to the template adaptation: - Removed table of content (commented out), I don't think that this is standard in ACM TOMS format? - Replaced `~\Cref` by `~\ref` - Replaced `listing` listings by `minted` and removed `listing` package. Moved listing captions above, I think that is ACM convention for both table and listing. (https://www.acm.org/publications/taps/latex-best-practices) - Moved captions above tables. - Cleaned (commented out) packages conflicting with `acmart` - I have *generated (AI!)* `\city` for each author as required by the `acmart`, I went over it quickly, and it seems fine, but I don't exclude mistakes there. Stylistic: I have made some stylistic proposition, you keep, you delete. I kept the original commented out. The numbering I give hereafter is based on the current state of the document: - 2.4 Review of existing API designs for the SpMV operation: - I *generated (AI!)* a table (Table 1) that summarize this SpMV execution comparison. This compress quite a lot this part (loosing some content on the way but make a nice direct overview of it. Maybe interesting to develop? - I made a single-block listing (Listing 1) instead of the sequence of unique ones. That might be better to keep the document coherent as `acmart` will treat this full listing as a coherent piece instead of many separated ones. Also takes less space, tho currently removes some comments of the original listing and only keep the fundamental API call (I can revert that). - I made tables 2,3,4, and 5 full width. That brings their fonts closer to the overall reading font of the document, I think that makes them easier for me to read, but that takes more space. - I made dedicated explicit listings for what is now *Listing 5 Three-stage API* and *Listing 6. Alternative two-stage API* for SpGeMM. I adapted slightly the text (kept old in comment) to fix mention to the listings. - Cleaned style *Table 6 instances of the view wrapper in SparseBLAS.* - Made *Table 8 List of the SparseBLAS functionalities.* full width. -> Only table 7 is untouched besides caption put above.
- verified all \Cref for duplication of style: "Table Table 3.2" etc
-> Removed old tables/listings in favour of full width version -> fixed a but with the enumeration env in Listing 1
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This PR:
\cityfor each author, this need to be checked.acmartacmartit might be better, also take less space. The compressed table is a proposition that might be convenient for the reader to get at a glance the differences between APIs.I also noticed that the way that the Pre-condition and Post-condition are written with the
\\can lead to weird placements with figures, listings and table (I had a post-condition alone one page further cut by a figure). This might need attention when finalizing the formatting of the document.