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 <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 > > > > > -- David Golden <x...@xdg.me> Twitter/IRC: @xdg
