On 7-3-2015 15:30, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/03/2015 12:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> LOL. Better be careful indeed and lock the door. As far as evolution is
>> concerned, we still are in the process of change I am told: number and
>> size of teeth; shape of the lower jaw; just to mention a few things that
>> are changing very rapidly, in terms of centuries if not decades.
>
> Add medicines to that and you'll get a strange mix.
>
> It ain't natural. I tell you. :-)
>
How true Dr Frankenstein. All those tales about vampires... :-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 07/03/2015 14:58, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 7-3-2015 15:30, Stephen wrote:
>> On 07/03/2015 12:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>> LOL. Better be careful indeed and lock the door. As far as evolution is
>>> concerned, we still are in the process of change I am told: number and
>>> size of teeth; shape of the lower jaw; just to mention a few things that
>>> are changing very rapidly, in terms of centuries if not decades.
>>
>> Add medicines to that and you'll get a strange mix.
>>
>> It ain't natural. I tell you. :-)
>>
> How true Dr Frankenstein. All those tales about vampires... :-)
>

Not me. I was nowhere near the place, then. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 7-3-2015 16:35, Stephen wrote:
> On 07/03/2015 14:58, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 7-3-2015 15:30, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 07/03/2015 12:52, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>> LOL. Better be careful indeed and lock the door. As far as evolution is
>>>> concerned, we still are in the process of change I am told: number and
>>>> size of teeth; shape of the lower jaw; just to mention a few things
>>>> that
>>>> are changing very rapidly, in terms of centuries if not decades.
>>>
>>> Add medicines to that and you'll get a strange mix.
>>>
>>> It ain't natural. I tell you. :-)
>>>
>> How true Dr Frankenstein. All those tales about vampires... :-)
>>
>
> Not me. I was nowhere near the place, then. ;-)
>
What? Where were you on the 6th of July 1816? At midnight? ;-)

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 08/03/2015 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:

>>>>
>>> How true Dr Frankenstein. All those tales about vampires... :-)
>>>
>>
>> Not me. I was nowhere near the place, then. ;-)
>>
> What? Where were you on the 6th of July 1816? At midnight? ;-)
>


I have an alibi.
I was nursing Dr John back to health after the Battle of Seven Oaks. He 
stepped in front of a musket ball aimed at me. Governor Semple was a fool.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8-3-2015 10:43, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/03/2015 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>
>>>>>
>>>> How true Dr Frankenstein. All those tales about vampires... :-)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not me. I was nowhere near the place, then. ;-)
>>>
>> What? Where were you on the 6th of July 1816? At midnight? ;-)
>>
>
>
> I have an alibi.
> I was nursing Dr John back to health after the Battle of Seven Oaks. He
> stepped in front of a musket ball aimed at me. Governor Semple was a fool.
>
Of course, of course. I should have known... It explains quite a lot though.

-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 08/03/2015 12:07, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 8-3-2015 10:43, Stephen wrote:
>> On 08/03/2015 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> How true Dr Frankenstein. All those tales about vampires... :-)
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Not me. I was nowhere near the place, then. ;-)
>>>>
>>> What? Where were you on the 6th of July 1816? At midnight? ;-)
>>>
>>
>>
>> I have an alibi.
>> I was nursing Dr John back to health after the Battle of Seven Oaks. He
>> stepped in front of a musket ball aimed at me. Governor Semple was a
>> fool.
>>
> Of course, of course. I should have known... It explains quite a lot
> though.
>

It does. Blew half his head off. All over my best uniform as well. Took 
him a deuce of a time to recover. I used some native lichen to pack the 
wound. The same stuff that fellow, John Wyndham, found. He made a full 
recovery, better than ever. Especially in the head department. The 
lichen was assimilated and gave him supper powers. ;-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 8-3-2015 13:45, Stephen wrote:
> On 08/03/2015 12:07, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>> On 8-3-2015 10:43, Stephen wrote:
>>> On 08/03/2015 08:28, Thomas de Groot wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> How true Dr Frankenstein. All those tales about vampires... :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Not me. I was nowhere near the place, then. ;-)
>>>>>
>>>> What? Where were you on the 6th of July 1816? At midnight? ;-)
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I have an alibi.
>>> I was nursing Dr John back to health after the Battle of Seven Oaks. He
>>> stepped in front of a musket ball aimed at me. Governor Semple was a
>>> fool.
>>>
>> Of course, of course. I should have known... It explains quite a lot
>> though.
>>
>
> It does. Blew half his head off. All over my best uniform as well. Took
> him a deuce of a time to recover. I used some native lichen to pack the
> wound. The same stuff that fellow, John Wyndham, found. He made a full
> recovery, better than ever. Especially in the head department. The
> lichen was assimilated and gave him supper powers. ;-)
>
I should be careful with those 'supper'(sic) powers. Obesitas, you know. ;-)

Glad he recovered though. I remember Wyndham made quite mess of the 
stuff but apparently it was good for something after all. Doesn't John 
clap his hands too often? for no apparent reason?
-- 
Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 05/03/2015 06:37 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 03/03/2015 10:45 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> It's a tad verbose (!!), but it works. The protocol is that every
>> top-level Haskell constant becomes a
>>
>> public static Thunk<...> OB_XXX = ...
>>
>> Any top-level constant that's a *function* also gets a
>>
>> public static T0 FN_XXX(Thunk<T1> arg1, Thunk<T2> arg2, Thunk<T3> args)
>> {
>> ...compiled code...
>> }
>
> ...yeah, that doesn't actually work.
>
> Haskell allows you to declare a "constant" who's type is polymorphic. C#
> does not.

In other fun news, C# allows you to use Func<Foo, Bar> to denote a 
first-class function from type Foo to type Bar. It does *not* allow you 
to represent a generic function in this manner, however. For example,

   public List<TX> map<TX, TY>(Func<TX, TY>, List<TY>) {...}

is a valid generic method. But the *only* way to encode this as a Func<> 
is to do

   Func<Func<object, object>, List<object>, List<object>>

and then some nifty run-time type-checking. You know, the exact thing 
that generics exists to prevent? :-P

Ah well, I suppose it's silly to expect the entire Haskell type system 
to fit *exactly* into a radically different programming language. (I 
suspect C++ could probably handle it though...)

Post a reply to this message

> Ah well, I suppose it's silly to expect the entire Haskell type system
> to fit *exactly* into a radically different programming language. (I
> suspect C++ could probably handle it though...)

Have you looked at F#? That limitation might be with C# rather than the CIL.

Post a reply to this message

On 18/03/2015 08:27 AM, scott wrote:
>> Ah well, I suppose it's silly to expect the entire Haskell type system
>> to fit *exactly* into a radically different programming language. (I
>> suspect C++ could probably handle it though...)
>
> Have you looked at F#? That limitation might be with C# rather than the
> CIL.

Yeah, I remember briefly looking at F#, and being unimpressed. Since 
it's designed to directly interact with a huge, very imperative OO 
library, it ends up being very imperative and OO.

I did think about generating CIL directly. It looks pretty complicated 
though. And so far, I've only found a few little corners where C# won't 
do what I want. Overall, it looks to be refreshingly easy for C# code to 
talk to Haskell and vice versa. Although... come back when I've actually 
*finished* the thing! ;-)

I can live with the lack of generics. It mostly affects internal 
machine-generated code, so...

Post a reply to this message