Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0
[email protected] (Aristotle Pagaltzis)
| Newsgroups | perl.cpan.workers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
Hi Jens, * Jens Rehsack <[email protected]> [2014-06-02 13:30]: > * Karen Etheridge <[email protected]> [2014-06-02 01:30]: > > I'm wondering why it isn't always possible to split a dist into two > > implementations, one PP and the other with XS optimizations. If the > > dist simply cannot be implemented using pure Perl (Moose, for > > example), then surely the right thing to is simply refuse to install > > on PP systems? > > Eg. LMU - you cannot split out LMU::XS for historical reasons. how come? Is there a technical difficulty with that? What prevents it? Regards, -- Aristotle Pagaltzis // <http://plasmasturm.org/>