Bang bang operators

Patrik Nyblom pan@REDACTED
Thu Apr 1 18:22:29 CEST 2004

Backward compatible? Really, Hakan, what do you think?

Of course it is! Follow the unqestionable logic:

Excerpt from the referenced webpage:
Plot Summary: An eccentric professor invents wacky machinery

Well, who else than us could invent such a plot, having first hand
everyday experience? Of course people from OTP are behind this marvelous

As everyone knows, we are always backward compatible with *anything* that
has ever had (or ever will have) any connection to OTP. 

We therefore have a special workgroup reviewing all new syntax for 
chitty chitty bang bang compatibility, the OMMCWG (Old Musical Manuscript
Compatibility Workgroup). 

The new syntax is obviously OMMCWG-approved. 


Please also note the user comment: 
[...]This is what happens when Musicals are on Crack.[...], 
which is nearly identical to the user comments regarding the match
specification syntax. Obviously that clue should have made you understand
the connection between us and the film.

So please stop nagging me with questions to which you so easilly could
have deduced an appropriate answer yourself, or I'll haunt your workplace
and will eventually replace you with a very small shell-script.

Best Regards,
Patrik, BBWG (the big bang workgroup)

The absence of the standard Ericsson disclaimer by no means mean that
you're allowed to read what you have just read. If you moved your lips
while reading, go wash your mouth with soap. 
On Thu, 1 Apr 2004, Hakan Mattsson wrote:

> On 1 Apr 2004, Bjorn Gustavsson wrote:
> bjorn> Instead we will add the following operators to a special patch
> bjorn> release of R9C:
> Are they compatible with the good old Chitty Chitty Bang Bang operator?
> See the trailer at:
> /Håkan

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list