Re: Lancaster Consensus, deal with PUREPERL_ONLY=0
[email protected] (Peter Rabbitson)
| Newsgroups | perl.cpan.workers |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, Jun 01, 2014 at 05:59:16PM +0200, Jens Rehsack wrote: > > Am 01.06.2014 um 15:03 schrieb David Golden <[email protected]>: > > > 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. > > Given this point - how can we give people an instrument to force XS > and fail if it's not available? As I mentioned before - you create a separate ::XS distribution, against which the outliers declare dependencies. In general "forcing XS" when PP is available is *always* *invairably* the wrong approach (which is why they are called outliers above ;)