|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|