Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0
[email protected] (Jens Rehsack)
| Newsgroups | perl.cpan.workers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi, I implemented the interpretation of PUREPERL_ONLY in C::AC as: equals 1 - don't XS (even don't prove) equals 0 - don't PP only (force XS, fail if cannot be proved) undefined - XS/PP depends on prove Ribasushi hinted to verify my interpretation to ask on ML. So what do others think - how should PUREPERL_ONLY=0 being interpreted? Cheers -- Jens Rehsack [email protected]