Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0

The only thing specified in the lancaster consensus is what must
happen if that command-line argument is true.

I think making a distinction between "0" and undefined will be
surprising to people and I would recommend against it.


On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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]
>
>
>
>
>



-- 
David Golden <[email protected]> Twitter/IRC: @xdg