Am 01.06.2014 um 15:03 schrieb David Golden <x...@xdg.me>: > 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? > On Sun, Jun 1, 2014 at 7:19 AM, Jens Rehsack <rehs...@gmail.com> 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 rehs...@gmail.com
